25 ms·

As a believer and someone who attends church regularly, this is sad but not unexpected. From my own personal experience - if the church cannot answer questions

As a believer and someone who attends church regularly, this is sad but not unexpected. From my own personal experience - if the church cannot answer questions clearly, their members will look for answers somewhere else. A lot of churches unfortunately are so elementary in their teaching or turn to "feel good preaching" (see Elevation Church). The longterm effect is that a person ends up being tired of getting the same "baby food" and they look to other places. The churches where theology is solid (and clear) tend to be stronger in number and in regular attendance.

rchaud 6y ago
What are the questions that church leaders are getting from their flock these days? Some big questions are being debated in society, sure, but the church's position on a lot of things is set in stone, is it not? Maybe this is my ignorance talking, but I thought those with active church membership continue to go to participate in social events and make friends/partners?
- objectivetruth 6y ago
  The Christian Church has been getting steadily less monolithic for the past 1700 years or so. Some of the topics being discussed in our (US) church in the past couple of years: * the devastating personal and economic toll of the pandemic and how we can help individually and in aggregate * race relations in the US and the history of injustices caused by racism, including police brutality, and how we can respond in our daily lives * LGBTQ-related topics, including the ability of people of different sexual identities to participate fully at all levels of the church hierarchy * the environmental impact of our actions at the personal level all the way up to the institutional level as it pertains to human-caused climate change You can find many churches in the US with people that believe in every possible belief related to all of these issues. No, it's not just potlucks and singles nights :-)
bko 6y ago
What are those questions for which you seek answers that you believe some churches are not adequately addressing?
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Take a look at the popularity of "prosperity gospel" with poor and middle class individuals. This is as a response to the inequality and social immobility brought about since the mid 70s. I'll leave out explicit mention of the "C word," because I'll get downvotes for it, but the sociological analysis is fascinating on its own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology#Socioeconomic_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology#Socioecono...
  - bko 6y ago
    Whats the alternative for those less fortunate? I mentored kids for much of my life and you can bet I told them they could be anything they want if they set their mind to it. What should I preach? That they're victims and screwed because of accident of geography/genetics? Is that a useful framework for life? You can say that you teach them the system is unfair will help them break it. But that amounts to political indoctrination if you're not careful. Instead, teach them to change the world themselves by being kind to those around them.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      There is no separating economics from politics, really. If God can't deliver, people have to, and that's inherently a political position.
      - bko 6y ago
        So indoctrinate your children into your current political ideology? Sure, many people do that. Not exactly a new or novel idea, but personally I'm not a fan.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean by "your children" and "your current political ideology," but, no matter what you do, children are going to acquire a political ideology, there's nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it, and there's no guarantee at all that you're going to like their ideology. Most of them get at least the initial version of it from their parents. A lot of peoples' ideology gets shaped in early adulthood, when they're either at school or on their own for the first time. My parents didn't raise a communist, but that's what they got, for better or worse. I have never personally known a clergy member to be particularly political, but we know that a large part of the US is politically driven by religious forces. Like it or not, church and state are not fully separated. I guess what I'm saying is that none of what I've written here was particularly intended as advice to you in your position as a religious teacher of children. I will say, however, that Jesus himself did have some explicitly political teachings. Matthew 19:24 comes to mind: > And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Do with this what you will.
psychometry 6y ago
The most "solid" theology is just shaky philosophy, though.
- sarabad2021 6y ago
  I see no issues with Christianity from a philosophical standpoint. It explains things which our beyond our natural/physical world. Those things impact how we live in this world. I'm curious what you mean in your statement, please unpack your claim.
  - postingawayonhn 6y ago
    For me it raises more questions than it answers.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    The parent is referring to the (actually, legitimately, really bad) philosophy that you can find in the most puffed-up theology books. It comes from the same process of domain envy that makes some philosophers put the worst math ever in their papers, except it started several hundred years earlier. To cut one slice through it, I can point you to a page of 100% fallacious arguments[0] that only survived as long as they did because they had a popular conclusion. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
    - User23 6y ago
      The very page you link lists a logically sound ontological argument[1]. It appears to me that you're judging the argument fallacious because you don't like the conclusion. [1]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#GodOntArg https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#Go...
      - whatshisface 6y ago
        The fallacy in that one is thinking that accepting those axioms is any different than directly accepting the conclusion. :) Stating a bunch of axioms and deriving something doesn't prove what you derived, except in a technical sense of the word "prove," not in a useful sense related to determining the truth. Even if we accept that Godel's logic was sound, there is plainly no more reason to believe in his starting point than there is to directly believe in the end.
cwwc 6y ago
I get this, but wouldn’t the flip side be the brightness and relief that hypocrisy is being culled through this? Just a thought — but if you stop acting in a way (attending church) that doesn’t jive with what you believe, that seems to be revealing truth (something which all ca rejoice over, even if it’s a tough truth). On the other hand — if it is people that are losing their faith, that is perhaps different, and I can see your concern.
- CedarMills 6y ago
  I think the word hypocrisy is thrown around easily. I think churches have made mistakes and there are no excuses for them - but painting every single church and every single believer with a broad brush and calling everyone a hypocrite is intellectually dishonest. My personal worldview - at the end of the day, we're human and should see others as humans who make mistakes and give enough grace for them to try to improve.
  - cwwc 6y ago
    Concurred. Absolutely.
Freak_NL 6y ago
There does not seem to be a shortage of church variety to choose from. It's not about churches not being able to answer questions clearly; the reality is just that fewer people believe in gods. For comparison: in the Netherlands we already dipped below 50% in 2017, and the number of religious people keeps dropping steadily. In 2019 the remaining religious minority was composed of 20.1% Roman Catholics, 14.8% protestants (various types), 5.0% Muslims, and 5.9% adherents of other religions. Edit: bear in mind that this is people who consider themselves religious. The percentage of people actually member of a church/mosque/whatever is below 30%.
- subpixel 6y ago
  Even if one believes, the notion that these often corrupt, sometimes malignant control organizations we call churches are a necessary expense of both time and money is a harder sell in the modern world. The social role that churches play is where the opening raises real concern. What comes after organized religion may well look more like conspiracy theory.
  - bopbeepboop 6y ago
    I would argue several modern problems trace to the collapse of churches as a social institution: - loneliness - lack of dating/marriage - lack of community infrastructure - lack of elder care If you look at existing charities, much of the rubber meets road work gets done by churches or church affiliated groups. You don’t have to like the message or the people, but I think it’s pretty obvious ditching churches without a replacement was a mistake. Edit: reply here since rate limited // > Yes, this can obviously vary by church--but it's a fallacy to claim that churches as a whole prevented loneliness. No, you’re the one making a fallacy: your mothers singular bad experience doesn’t refute that churches made a statistically positive impact, which was my claim. You just told an emotional anecdote then declared that I’m wrong due to a straw man. (I never made a universal claim.) > an entire generation growing up in the shadow of the 2008 financial collapse, as well as unprecedented debt from college Okay? The downwards trend in dating and marriage didn’t start in 2008 and doesn’t seem to hold across cultures — there’s a clear cultural component related to social changes in the US. If you’re saying you think the collapse of churches is on par with excessive college debt as to why two-ish generations aren’t flourishing: I agree. That’s my point. > it's a self-selecting population that inherently echochambers, making it difficult to relate to outside groups, thus further damaging community This sounds like a stereotype more than a fact — and is exactly counter to my experience, where multiple churches collaborate on things like homelessness charities. That fine grained social structure is a necessary layer of how governments distribute resources effectively, one very poorly replaced by private actors. (In my experience.) > you don't give any supporting arguments for them I must have missed yours. > you quite nicely fit the churchgoer stereotype in that way Here’s the crux of it: you’re making faulty arguments because you need me to be wrong for your stereotypes to be right. Eg, calling me a “churchgoer stereotype” when I don’t attend church and you made similarly unsupported arguments. You’re just a bigot: factually wrong and stereotyping people.
49531 6y ago
As someone who was raised in a religious home who no longer attends any church I think it's less to do with not answering questions and more to do with a hostile rejection of religion generally. It wasn't until I had children of my own that I realized I needed to distance myself from religion. I know there is a large variety of what is taught from religion to religion and sect to sect but I'd like to steer clear from any organization that takes a negative view on basic things like homosexuality. I cannot fathom exposing my (or any) kids to that kind of worldview.
- CedarMills 6y ago
  I think it heavily depends on the church and community. One of the reasons we are staying in our current church is because we're open to a wide community (multi-ethnic) with the same core values. Our kids grow up in this community but at the end of the day, it will be their decision if they decide to no longer attend.
  - tenacious_tuna 6y ago
    I also grew up in a Christian house and am now atheist--I never understood how people could reconcile "church shopping" for a community that aligns with their views (e.g. not homophobic) with the notion that the core religious concepts are supposed to be infallible. If you disagree with various churches on some doctrinal/sociological point, how do you know that your current church is correct on God existing, or knowing what he wants? Part of my de-conversion was driven by what looked to me like people willfully deceiving themselves that it was possible to "choose" a church who fit their worldview, without treating the cosmology claims the church inherently makes with the same skepticism.
    - LargeWu 6y ago
      I get what you're saying, but there's plenty of disagreement on what those concepts even are. td;dr: Denominations vary wildly, and it's almost impossible to separate one's personal biases from choosing a congregation. For example, Catholicism is very heirarchical, stating that one cannot receive salvation except through the Catholic Church. Methodism states that good acts + belief are the gateway to heaven. Lutheranism promises salvation to all that believe in Christ. Or take the infallibility of the Bible. The Roman Catholic faith places a lot of emphasis on church doctrine, which is based on the Bible to be sure, but also a lot of church constructs. Baptists believe in a very literal interpretation of the Bible. Mainline protestants emphasize historical context and nuance. ELCA does not even claim the Bible is the literal word of God. Plus, individual congregations within a denomination might have differences in emphasis, sociopolitical leanings, etc. It's important to know that "The Church" is in many cases, and especially for Protestant denominations, made up of congregations from the bottom up, and reflects the aggregate of its membership.
avasylev 6y ago
Could you please share which churches you think have solid theology?
- luxuryballs 6y ago
  Calvary Chapel churches are usually pretty solid.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pantalaimon 6y ago
    Like their prediction of Jesus return in 1981?
    - luxuryballs 6y ago
      I think that was just one guy.
dagw 6y ago
I grew up attending church, and on the whole have nothing but good things to say about the whole experience. It gave me both spiritual and moral support when I needed it the most and some of the best people I have ever known, I got to know through church. In fact in ways I mourn the loss of both my faith and my 'church'. However once I realized that, on a very fundamental level, the core of what they where claiming as true wasn't in fact true, I felt I had no choice to walk away.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  What would that be? I’ve encountered this claim more often than I’ve encountered actual fundamentalist churches I think are making any sort of strong claim about the world. So I’m curious to hear what people think is wrong.
  - tenacious_tuna 6y ago
    > What would that be? not OP, but I would presume "the claim" is that (a) there is a God, (b) the church knows which one, and (c) they know what he wants. For comparison, I (atheist) normally state my position as "There is insufficient evidence to conclude there is a God," so any statement about there being any god, or about what influence they should/do have on our lives I treat as a "claim," which requires supporting evidence.
    - sanedigital 6y ago
      At the risk of being pedantic, I believe that’s more Agnostic than Atheist. Your statement allows for a God to exist, and even infers that you’re willing to believe in them given sufficient evidence. While the whole atheist-agnostic thing is more of a continuum than not, I think the line is whether you believe there is no God or whether you don’t believe there is one. It might seem pedantic but I do think it’s an important distinction.
      - tenacious_tuna 6y ago
        > I believe that’s more Agnostic than Atheist. I used to identify as agnostic for a while--the definition I quoted is one adapted from The Atheist Experience podcast. I'd personally describe someone who actively believes there is no god, i.e. possesses enough evidence to claim "There cannot be any god" an "anti-theist", in my personal lexicon. Generally this is why I bother to give the specific definition by claim--too often I've encountered religious folk who take "atheist" to mean "one who hates god", or "one who actively has evidence against a god", or similar--which may be true for other folk who use the label atheist, but doesn't match my personal definition. As you said, "the whole atheist-agnostic thing is more of a continuum than not," so I like to give the definition to clear up any mis-assumptions people may make about me for using said label :) I also agree that the difference does matter--I also think it's more intellectually honest of me to allow for the possibility that I am wrong, however unlikely--even then, there is an important distinction between acknowledging the existence of a god, and choosing to worship said god if they even existed (which is usually the follow-on question from religious folk I talk to.
yalogin 6y ago
Interesting. Can you give a few examples of what questions these are?
drumttocs8 6y ago
I grew up in a church that was very serious about "serious" preaching- Primitive Baptist, very focused on Calvinist doctrine and what could be considered scriptural literalism. It was definitely not "baby food"... but they still could not answer some questions clearly, and that is because it is an invention of man rooted in a prescientific understanding of the world. I would argue that church are losing members not because it is being watered down, but because it is losing relevance.
- throwawaygal7 6y ago
  Original anabaptists were not calvinists... primitive baptists are inherently unserious
  - ARandomerDude 6y ago
    Never thought I'd see the day when HN would turn into the Reformed Pub!
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      Don't give them any bright ideas...they'll turn into the Reform Club next
- worker767424 6y ago
  This is what it was smart for the Catholic church to have to issues with evolution. Maintaining a strict creationist stance just gets sillier and sillier over time.
cjameskeller 6y ago
Agreed. This was a major component in my switch from Protestant/Baptist to ("Greek"/Eastern) Orthodox. Having thousands of years of prior religious & philosophical discussions to draw from, as well as the experiences of people living under all manner of political regimes provides a much-needed grounding against whatever may be the current, trendy topics. And a direct result of that history is that the Church mandates certain practices to shape one's willpower: fasting (roughly half the year, in total, though "fasting" here means small vegan meals), some form of tithing &/or charitable work, explicit self-examination (not only standard prayers, but also Confession with a priest, who helps make a plan against bad habits, as well as an annual event where everyone in the parish asks forgiveness of each other) etc.
- ur-whale 6y ago
  This approach, "religion as an operator's manual to living one's life" is one of the very rare arguments in defense of religion I can vaguely resonate with. Unfortunately this argument entirely fails to support all the rest of the luggage, especially the metaphysical hokum: you can perfectly chose to live your life according to a set of rules that will help you (and others) without having to justify it via the existence of some bearded dude sitting on a cloud.
  - eszed 6y ago
    You're right, but there is value in the community of accountability that churches provide. Fasting, tithing, charity work, and self-examination are objectively worthwhile, but not things I'm likely to muster up the will-power to do on my own, at least not regularly. It's like physical exercise: easier to get yourself off your ass when you go to the gym with a friend, or join a regular class. Also, even though I don't really believe there's any "metaphysical hokum" going on behind it, I'm still moved (aesthetically, and -- dare I say? -- spiritually) by liturgy and church architecture. I'm sitting in the same place, while seeing and smelling and saying the same things that people have for hundreds or thousands of years. That's pretty cool, and I always feel better afterwards. So, even if I'm rationally convinced that it's a psychological (rather than metaphysical) effect, it's still worth doing.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
The internet and the ability to discuss these issues anonymously has exacerbated irreligion faster than communism ever could. And unlike stalinist/maoist regimes, people are doing it on their own free will.
adkadskhj 6y ago
Couldn't agree more. The thing that drove me away from faith was feeling like it was a set of truths that required obscuring the rest of life to keep true. To me faith is something that you _have_ to understand through the lens of your life. There is no understanding faith before life. Your experiences allow you to understand faith. Which isn't to say that life is more important than faith, not at all, just that life is the lens in which you view faith. In that mindset, faith seems exceptionally deep and complex. Full of discussion, learning, change. Not a black and white truth, but a series of learnings and understanding. You can't learn (in my mind) without change, and so the idea of a churn that teaches absolute truths felt fundamentally broken to me. I think faith is a journey in knowledge. And so many churches seem almost aggressive towards knowledge. They favor rote memorization, i think, as a method to avoid change. To avoid their doctrine as being mutable. This mindset also seems pervasive into how these people behave in life, too. Just like how children need to learn to think critically, adults need to practice thinking critically. Such a strong emphasis on rote memorization has wide affects, i think. No grand statements here, and i mean no offense to religion. Just my thoughts on some denominations.
outside1234 6y ago
Agreed - especially in the face of obvious sinful behavior in the case of Trump that they somehow can't speak out against.
dookahku 6y ago
i mostly got tired of being told i going to burn and choke and scream forever and ever, amen, because i like guys and gals. and if i disagreed, the pastor made sure i got punished. the long term effects wast that this not a healthy thing to tell a young teenager, and it's time for society to move on.
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  I believe this is a way bigger factor than OP comment says: church failing to keep up with modern society. 1000% that's why I am against many (perhaps most by % in the US?) of the organized religious congregations. those that identify queer, gender-fluid, whatever are told their literal existence is sin. it's hard to imagine how damaging that is if you're not in this community. It'd be like telling someone who has orange hair they are going to hell for something they have absolutely no control over. In the worst cases they push parents to try to 'change' their kids, which has been shown to be incredibly dangerous and damaging. Even if you're in a 'liberal' church that says we love gays like we love all humans, but don't think about getting married and in some cases can't have sex, that still does a huge amount of psychological damage and putting us on the outside of 'normal.'
- Zelphyr 6y ago
  I too got tired of the yelling and the fire-and-brimstone-you’re-gonna-burn-in-hell if you’re not God-fearing. That word: “fear”. They were using it as a tool to manipulate. Finally, I realized, “Why does God want me to be scared all the time?” Shouldn’t God be allaying my fears, not being the source of them?
filoeleven 6y ago
The American evangelical movement is particularly rabid, and subscribes overwhelmingly to Christian nationalism. It is entirely too mixed into politics, and is trying to create a theocratic state where “everyone must live like Christians (for my definition of Christian).” One of the high points for me regarding religion in the past couple years was finding The Holy Post podcast. One host is Phil Vischer, AKA Bob the Tomato, the creator of Veggie Tales. I have some fundamental (heh) disagreements with their perspective at this point, but they remind me of what I thought the church was while growing up within it, and they still largely reflect what I think it should be. They acknowledge that there’s lots of room for disagreement, they don’t think they have all the answers, and they strike me as genuinely loving people. If I had heard more people talking like them 20 years ago, I might not have left the church. It’s not a question of “baby food” so much as “cultural identity,” and the cultural identity of the American church is largely flag-waving rah-rah nationalism. Not sure what stats you’re referencing, because megachurches are still quite popular here and quite clear on their “theology.” If you the parent poster are not located in America, please disregard this post entirely.
- RickJWagner 6y ago
  Phil Vischer is one talented song-writer.
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  Hah, never thought I'd see the Holy Post show up in an HN comment. Fun podcast. I think what they're doing is important - exposing hypocrisy and nationalism in the American Evangelical church while pointing to a more charitable form of Christianity.
- CoolCoolidge 6y ago
  Replace "American evangelical" and "Christian" with "American muslim/Jewish" and "muslim/Jewish", and read what you just wrote. I think you will see how bigoted it is.
worker767424 6y ago
Some people go to church for answers, but I think a lot are really just there for the community and play along with the religious parts because of inertia.
gremlinsinc 6y ago
Do you not consider God a narcissist? When he says "Worship me", no other gods, I'm a jealous god, worship or face hell-fire, literally threatening if you do not worship? Why does God need/desire your worship? You know, I have kids. I "hope" they love me and always will, but I'll never force them to say it and I'm definitely not going to punish them if they are mad at me and won't prop up my ego.
rorykoehler 6y ago
As a non believer I love to see it. Believing in something you can’t prove and in turn trying to shove it down everyone’s throat is the antithesis to the world I want to live in. George W Bush and Tony Blair both admitted that the second gulf war was partially a religious crusade. This is who you’re teaming up with.
wslack 6y ago
Yep. It's a pity there isn't more attention for churches that answer questions clearly and dig into nuance - but complexity doesn't get attention.
unpolloloco 6y ago
I'd guess you're a Gen X from your comment? I'd claim that, for the younger generations (middle millennials and younger), that the very claim that the church has all the answers is the problem itself. They deal in relatives and uncertainty as a general rule and the very assertion that one person (or one group of people) has all the answers is laughable. They appreciate humility and acknowledged uncertainty more than clear answers. I'd posit that these generations are primarily looking for acceptance, not answers. And they're not getting that acceptance, so they leave. Which was my experience - I started questioning teachings (directly based on my reading of scripture) and had leaders shut down on me entirely and refuse to talk further instead of engaging because it didn't fit in the prescribed "answer" - and this was in a fairly "open-minded" church. I'd come back tomorrow if I could find a church that (most importantly) actually accepted me for me and (secondly) would actually engage in tough topics instead of just giving me hollow "answers" that didn't answer the question (and often conflicted directly with scripture!). I guess what I'm looking for is a church that actually practiced grace and acceptance, answers be damned. That's what Jesus did (see hanging out with tax collectors and prostitutes and preaching a message of love for everyone). Why can't the church do it too?

rchaud 6y ago

What are the questions that church leaders are getting from their flock these days? Some big questions are being debated in society, sure, but the church's position on a lot of things is set in stone, is it not? Maybe this is my ignorance talking, but I thought those with active church membership continue to go to participate in social events and make friends/partners?

objectivetruth 6y ago
The Christian Church has been getting steadily less monolithic for the past 1700 years or so. Some of the topics being discussed in our (US) church in the past couple of years: * the devastating personal and economic toll of the pandemic and how we can help individually and in aggregate * race relations in the US and the history of injustices caused by racism, including police brutality, and how we can respond in our daily lives * LGBTQ-related topics, including the ability of people of different sexual identities to participate fully at all levels of the church hierarchy * the environmental impact of our actions at the personal level all the way up to the institutional level as it pertains to human-caused climate change You can find many churches in the US with people that believe in every possible belief related to all of these issues. No, it's not just potlucks and singles nights :-)

bko 6y ago

What are those questions for which you seek answers that you believe some churches are not adequately addressing?

pmiller2 6y ago
Take a look at the popularity of "prosperity gospel" with poor and middle class individuals. This is as a response to the inequality and social immobility brought about since the mid 70s. I'll leave out explicit mention of the "C word," because I'll get downvotes for it, but the sociological analysis is fascinating on its own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology#Socioeconomic_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology#Socioecono...
- bko 6y ago
  Whats the alternative for those less fortunate? I mentored kids for much of my life and you can bet I told them they could be anything they want if they set their mind to it. What should I preach? That they're victims and screwed because of accident of geography/genetics? Is that a useful framework for life? You can say that you teach them the system is unfair will help them break it. But that amounts to political indoctrination if you're not careful. Instead, teach them to change the world themselves by being kind to those around them.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    There is no separating economics from politics, really. If God can't deliver, people have to, and that's inherently a political position.
    - bko 6y ago
      So indoctrinate your children into your current political ideology? Sure, many people do that. Not exactly a new or novel idea, but personally I'm not a fan.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean by "your children" and "your current political ideology," but, no matter what you do, children are going to acquire a political ideology, there's nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it, and there's no guarantee at all that you're going to like their ideology. Most of them get at least the initial version of it from their parents. A lot of peoples' ideology gets shaped in early adulthood, when they're either at school or on their own for the first time. My parents didn't raise a communist, but that's what they got, for better or worse. I have never personally known a clergy member to be particularly political, but we know that a large part of the US is politically driven by religious forces. Like it or not, church and state are not fully separated. I guess what I'm saying is that none of what I've written here was particularly intended as advice to you in your position as a religious teacher of children. I will say, however, that Jesus himself did have some explicitly political teachings. Matthew 19:24 comes to mind: > And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Do with this what you will.

psychometry 6y ago

The most "solid" theology is just shaky philosophy, though.

sarabad2021 6y ago
I see no issues with Christianity from a philosophical standpoint. It explains things which our beyond our natural/physical world. Those things impact how we live in this world. I'm curious what you mean in your statement, please unpack your claim.
- postingawayonhn 6y ago
  For me it raises more questions than it answers.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  The parent is referring to the (actually, legitimately, really bad) philosophy that you can find in the most puffed-up theology books. It comes from the same process of domain envy that makes some philosophers put the worst math ever in their papers, except it started several hundred years earlier. To cut one slice through it, I can point you to a page of 100% fallacious arguments[0] that only survived as long as they did because they had a popular conclusion. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
  - User23 6y ago
    The very page you link lists a logically sound ontological argument[1]. It appears to me that you're judging the argument fallacious because you don't like the conclusion. [1]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#GodOntArg https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#Go...
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      The fallacy in that one is thinking that accepting those axioms is any different than directly accepting the conclusion. :) Stating a bunch of axioms and deriving something doesn't prove what you derived, except in a technical sense of the word "prove," not in a useful sense related to determining the truth. Even if we accept that Godel's logic was sound, there is plainly no more reason to believe in his starting point than there is to directly believe in the end.

cwwc 6y ago

I get this, but wouldn’t the flip side be the brightness and relief that hypocrisy is being culled through this? Just a thought — but if you stop acting in a way (attending church) that doesn’t jive with what you believe, that seems to be revealing truth (something which all ca rejoice over, even if it’s a tough truth). On the other hand — if it is people that are losing their faith, that is perhaps different, and I can see your concern.

CedarMills 6y ago
I think the word hypocrisy is thrown around easily. I think churches have made mistakes and there are no excuses for them - but painting every single church and every single believer with a broad brush and calling everyone a hypocrite is intellectually dishonest. My personal worldview - at the end of the day, we're human and should see others as humans who make mistakes and give enough grace for them to try to improve.
- cwwc 6y ago
  Concurred. Absolutely.

Freak_NL 6y ago

There does not seem to be a shortage of church variety to choose from. It's not about churches not being able to answer questions clearly; the reality is just that fewer people believe in gods. For comparison: in the Netherlands we already dipped below 50% in 2017, and the number of religious people keeps dropping steadily. In 2019 the remaining religious minority was composed of 20.1% Roman Catholics, 14.8% protestants (various types), 5.0% Muslims, and 5.9% adherents of other religions. Edit: bear in mind that this is people who consider themselves religious. The percentage of people actually member of a church/mosque/whatever is below 30%.

subpixel 6y ago
Even if one believes, the notion that these often corrupt, sometimes malignant control organizations we call churches are a necessary expense of both time and money is a harder sell in the modern world. The social role that churches play is where the opening raises real concern. What comes after organized religion may well look more like conspiracy theory.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  I would argue several modern problems trace to the collapse of churches as a social institution: - loneliness - lack of dating/marriage - lack of community infrastructure - lack of elder care If you look at existing charities, much of the rubber meets road work gets done by churches or church affiliated groups. You don’t have to like the message or the people, but I think it’s pretty obvious ditching churches without a replacement was a mistake. Edit: reply here since rate limited // > Yes, this can obviously vary by church--but it's a fallacy to claim that churches as a whole prevented loneliness. No, you’re the one making a fallacy: your mothers singular bad experience doesn’t refute that churches made a statistically positive impact, which was my claim. You just told an emotional anecdote then declared that I’m wrong due to a straw man. (I never made a universal claim.) > an entire generation growing up in the shadow of the 2008 financial collapse, as well as unprecedented debt from college Okay? The downwards trend in dating and marriage didn’t start in 2008 and doesn’t seem to hold across cultures — there’s a clear cultural component related to social changes in the US. If you’re saying you think the collapse of churches is on par with excessive college debt as to why two-ish generations aren’t flourishing: I agree. That’s my point. > it's a self-selecting population that inherently echochambers, making it difficult to relate to outside groups, thus further damaging community This sounds like a stereotype more than a fact — and is exactly counter to my experience, where multiple churches collaborate on things like homelessness charities. That fine grained social structure is a necessary layer of how governments distribute resources effectively, one very poorly replaced by private actors. (In my experience.) > you don't give any supporting arguments for them I must have missed yours. > you quite nicely fit the churchgoer stereotype in that way Here’s the crux of it: you’re making faulty arguments because you need me to be wrong for your stereotypes to be right. Eg, calling me a “churchgoer stereotype” when I don’t attend church and you made similarly unsupported arguments. You’re just a bigot: factually wrong and stereotyping people.

49531 6y ago

As someone who was raised in a religious home who no longer attends any church I think it's less to do with not answering questions and more to do with a hostile rejection of religion generally. It wasn't until I had children of my own that I realized I needed to distance myself from religion. I know there is a large variety of what is taught from religion to religion and sect to sect but I'd like to steer clear from any organization that takes a negative view on basic things like homosexuality. I cannot fathom exposing my (or any) kids to that kind of worldview.

CedarMills 6y ago
I think it heavily depends on the church and community. One of the reasons we are staying in our current church is because we're open to a wide community (multi-ethnic) with the same core values. Our kids grow up in this community but at the end of the day, it will be their decision if they decide to no longer attend.
- tenacious_tuna 6y ago
  I also grew up in a Christian house and am now atheist--I never understood how people could reconcile "church shopping" for a community that aligns with their views (e.g. not homophobic) with the notion that the core religious concepts are supposed to be infallible. If you disagree with various churches on some doctrinal/sociological point, how do you know that your current church is correct on God existing, or knowing what he wants? Part of my de-conversion was driven by what looked to me like people willfully deceiving themselves that it was possible to "choose" a church who fit their worldview, without treating the cosmology claims the church inherently makes with the same skepticism.
  - LargeWu 6y ago
    I get what you're saying, but there's plenty of disagreement on what those concepts even are. td;dr: Denominations vary wildly, and it's almost impossible to separate one's personal biases from choosing a congregation. For example, Catholicism is very heirarchical, stating that one cannot receive salvation except through the Catholic Church. Methodism states that good acts + belief are the gateway to heaven. Lutheranism promises salvation to all that believe in Christ. Or take the infallibility of the Bible. The Roman Catholic faith places a lot of emphasis on church doctrine, which is based on the Bible to be sure, but also a lot of church constructs. Baptists believe in a very literal interpretation of the Bible. Mainline protestants emphasize historical context and nuance. ELCA does not even claim the Bible is the literal word of God. Plus, individual congregations within a denomination might have differences in emphasis, sociopolitical leanings, etc. It's important to know that "The Church" is in many cases, and especially for Protestant denominations, made up of congregations from the bottom up, and reflects the aggregate of its membership.

avasylev 6y ago

Could you please share which churches you think have solid theology?

luxuryballs 6y ago
Calvary Chapel churches are usually pretty solid.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pantalaimon 6y ago
  Like their prediction of Jesus return in 1981?
  - luxuryballs 6y ago
    I think that was just one guy.

dagw 6y ago

I grew up attending church, and on the whole have nothing but good things to say about the whole experience. It gave me both spiritual and moral support when I needed it the most and some of the best people I have ever known, I got to know through church. In fact in ways I mourn the loss of both my faith and my 'church'. However once I realized that, on a very fundamental level, the core of what they where claiming as true wasn't in fact true, I felt I had no choice to walk away.

bopbeepboop 6y ago
What would that be? I’ve encountered this claim more often than I’ve encountered actual fundamentalist churches I think are making any sort of strong claim about the world. So I’m curious to hear what people think is wrong.
- tenacious_tuna 6y ago
  > What would that be? not OP, but I would presume "the claim" is that (a) there is a God, (b) the church knows which one, and (c) they know what he wants. For comparison, I (atheist) normally state my position as "There is insufficient evidence to conclude there is a God," so any statement about there being any god, or about what influence they should/do have on our lives I treat as a "claim," which requires supporting evidence.
  - sanedigital 6y ago
    At the risk of being pedantic, I believe that’s more Agnostic than Atheist. Your statement allows for a God to exist, and even infers that you’re willing to believe in them given sufficient evidence. While the whole atheist-agnostic thing is more of a continuum than not, I think the line is whether you believe there is no God or whether you don’t believe there is one. It might seem pedantic but I do think it’s an important distinction.
    - tenacious_tuna 6y ago
      > I believe that’s more Agnostic than Atheist. I used to identify as agnostic for a while--the definition I quoted is one adapted from The Atheist Experience podcast. I'd personally describe someone who actively believes there is no god, i.e. possesses enough evidence to claim "There cannot be any god" an "anti-theist", in my personal lexicon. Generally this is why I bother to give the specific definition by claim--too often I've encountered religious folk who take "atheist" to mean "one who hates god", or "one who actively has evidence against a god", or similar--which may be true for other folk who use the label atheist, but doesn't match my personal definition. As you said, "the whole atheist-agnostic thing is more of a continuum than not," so I like to give the definition to clear up any mis-assumptions people may make about me for using said label :) I also agree that the difference does matter--I also think it's more intellectually honest of me to allow for the possibility that I am wrong, however unlikely--even then, there is an important distinction between acknowledging the existence of a god, and choosing to worship said god if they even existed (which is usually the follow-on question from religious folk I talk to.

yalogin 6y ago

Interesting. Can you give a few examples of what questions these are?

drumttocs8 6y ago

I grew up in a church that was very serious about "serious" preaching- Primitive Baptist, very focused on Calvinist doctrine and what could be considered scriptural literalism. It was definitely not "baby food"... but they still could not answer some questions clearly, and that is because it is an invention of man rooted in a prescientific understanding of the world. I would argue that church are losing members not because it is being watered down, but because it is losing relevance.

throwawaygal7 6y ago
Original anabaptists were not calvinists... primitive baptists are inherently unserious
- ARandomerDude 6y ago
  Never thought I'd see the day when HN would turn into the Reformed Pub!
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Don't give them any bright ideas...they'll turn into the Reform Club next
worker767424 6y ago
This is what it was smart for the Catholic church to have to issues with evolution. Maintaining a strict creationist stance just gets sillier and sillier over time.

cjameskeller 6y ago

Agreed. This was a major component in my switch from Protestant/Baptist to ("Greek"/Eastern) Orthodox. Having thousands of years of prior religious & philosophical discussions to draw from, as well as the experiences of people living under all manner of political regimes provides a much-needed grounding against whatever may be the current, trendy topics. And a direct result of that history is that the Church mandates certain practices to shape one's willpower: fasting (roughly half the year, in total, though "fasting" here means small vegan meals), some form of tithing &/or charitable work, explicit self-examination (not only standard prayers, but also Confession with a priest, who helps make a plan against bad habits, as well as an annual event where everyone in the parish asks forgiveness of each other) etc.

ur-whale 6y ago
This approach, "religion as an operator's manual to living one's life" is one of the very rare arguments in defense of religion I can vaguely resonate with. Unfortunately this argument entirely fails to support all the rest of the luggage, especially the metaphysical hokum: you can perfectly chose to live your life according to a set of rules that will help you (and others) without having to justify it via the existence of some bearded dude sitting on a cloud.
- eszed 6y ago
  You're right, but there is value in the community of accountability that churches provide. Fasting, tithing, charity work, and self-examination are objectively worthwhile, but not things I'm likely to muster up the will-power to do on my own, at least not regularly. It's like physical exercise: easier to get yourself off your ass when you go to the gym with a friend, or join a regular class. Also, even though I don't really believe there's any "metaphysical hokum" going on behind it, I'm still moved (aesthetically, and -- dare I say? -- spiritually) by liturgy and church architecture. I'm sitting in the same place, while seeing and smelling and saying the same things that people have for hundreds or thousands of years. That's pretty cool, and I always feel better afterwards. So, even if I'm rationally convinced that it's a psychological (rather than metaphysical) effect, it's still worth doing.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

The internet and the ability to discuss these issues anonymously has exacerbated irreligion faster than communism ever could. And unlike stalinist/maoist regimes, people are doing it on their own free will.

adkadskhj 6y ago

Couldn't agree more. The thing that drove me away from faith was feeling like it was a set of truths that required obscuring the rest of life to keep true. To me faith is something that you _have_ to understand through the lens of your life. There is no understanding faith before life. Your experiences allow you to understand faith. Which isn't to say that life is more important than faith, not at all, just that life is the lens in which you view faith. In that mindset, faith seems exceptionally deep and complex. Full of discussion, learning, change. Not a black and white truth, but a series of learnings and understanding. You can't learn (in my mind) without change, and so the idea of a churn that teaches absolute truths felt fundamentally broken to me. I think faith is a journey in knowledge. And so many churches seem almost aggressive towards knowledge. They favor rote memorization, i think, as a method to avoid change. To avoid their doctrine as being mutable. This mindset also seems pervasive into how these people behave in life, too. Just like how children need to learn to think critically, adults need to practice thinking critically. Such a strong emphasis on rote memorization has wide affects, i think. No grand statements here, and i mean no offense to religion. Just my thoughts on some denominations.

outside1234 6y ago

Agreed - especially in the face of obvious sinful behavior in the case of Trump that they somehow can't speak out against.

dookahku 6y ago

i mostly got tired of being told i going to burn and choke and scream forever and ever, amen, because i like guys and gals. and if i disagreed, the pastor made sure i got punished. the long term effects wast that this not a healthy thing to tell a young teenager, and it's time for society to move on.

dillondoyle 6y ago
I believe this is a way bigger factor than OP comment says: church failing to keep up with modern society. 1000% that's why I am against many (perhaps most by % in the US?) of the organized religious congregations. those that identify queer, gender-fluid, whatever are told their literal existence is sin. it's hard to imagine how damaging that is if you're not in this community. It'd be like telling someone who has orange hair they are going to hell for something they have absolutely no control over. In the worst cases they push parents to try to 'change' their kids, which has been shown to be incredibly dangerous and damaging. Even if you're in a 'liberal' church that says we love gays like we love all humans, but don't think about getting married and in some cases can't have sex, that still does a huge amount of psychological damage and putting us on the outside of 'normal.'
Zelphyr 6y ago
I too got tired of the yelling and the fire-and-brimstone-you’re-gonna-burn-in-hell if you’re not God-fearing. That word: “fear”. They were using it as a tool to manipulate. Finally, I realized, “Why does God want me to be scared all the time?” Shouldn’t God be allaying my fears, not being the source of them?

filoeleven 6y ago

The American evangelical movement is particularly rabid, and subscribes overwhelmingly to Christian nationalism. It is entirely too mixed into politics, and is trying to create a theocratic state where “everyone must live like Christians (for my definition of Christian).” One of the high points for me regarding religion in the past couple years was finding The Holy Post podcast. One host is Phil Vischer, AKA Bob the Tomato, the creator of Veggie Tales. I have some fundamental (heh) disagreements with their perspective at this point, but they remind me of what I thought the church was while growing up within it, and they still largely reflect what I think it should be. They acknowledge that there’s lots of room for disagreement, they don’t think they have all the answers, and they strike me as genuinely loving people. If I had heard more people talking like them 20 years ago, I might not have left the church. It’s not a question of “baby food” so much as “cultural identity,” and the cultural identity of the American church is largely flag-waving rah-rah nationalism. Not sure what stats you’re referencing, because megachurches are still quite popular here and quite clear on their “theology.” If you the parent poster are not located in America, please disregard this post entirely.

RickJWagner 6y ago
Phil Vischer is one talented song-writer.
UncleOxidant 6y ago
Hah, never thought I'd see the Holy Post show up in an HN comment. Fun podcast. I think what they're doing is important - exposing hypocrisy and nationalism in the American Evangelical church while pointing to a more charitable form of Christianity.
CoolCoolidge 6y ago
Replace "American evangelical" and "Christian" with "American muslim/Jewish" and "muslim/Jewish", and read what you just wrote. I think you will see how bigoted it is.

worker767424 6y ago

Some people go to church for answers, but I think a lot are really just there for the community and play along with the religious parts because of inertia.

gremlinsinc 6y ago

Do you not consider God a narcissist? When he says "Worship me", no other gods, I'm a jealous god, worship or face hell-fire, literally threatening if you do not worship? Why does God need/desire your worship? You know, I have kids. I "hope" they love me and always will, but I'll never force them to say it and I'm definitely not going to punish them if they are mad at me and won't prop up my ego.

rorykoehler 6y ago

As a non believer I love to see it. Believing in something you can’t prove and in turn trying to shove it down everyone’s throat is the antithesis to the world I want to live in. George W Bush and Tony Blair both admitted that the second gulf war was partially a religious crusade. This is who you’re teaming up with.

wslack 6y ago

Yep. It's a pity there isn't more attention for churches that answer questions clearly and dig into nuance - but complexity doesn't get attention.

unpolloloco 6y ago

I'd guess you're a Gen X from your comment? I'd claim that, for the younger generations (middle millennials and younger), that the very claim that the church has all the answers is the problem itself. They deal in relatives and uncertainty as a general rule and the very assertion that one person (or one group of people) has all the answers is laughable. They appreciate humility and acknowledged uncertainty more than clear answers. I'd posit that these generations are primarily looking for acceptance, not answers. And they're not getting that acceptance, so they leave. Which was my experience - I started questioning teachings (directly based on my reading of scripture) and had leaders shut down on me entirely and refuse to talk further instead of engaging because it didn't fit in the prescribed "answer" - and this was in a fairly "open-minded" church. I'd come back tomorrow if I could find a church that (most importantly) actually accepted me for me and (secondly) would actually engage in tough topics instead of just giving me hollow "answers" that didn't answer the question (and often conflicted directly with scripture!). I guess what I'm looking for is a church that actually practiced grace and acceptance, answers be damned. That's what Jesus did (see hanging out with tax collectors and prostitutes and preaching a message of love for everyone). Why can't the church do it too?