This is a rosy view of religion, although I accept that is your experience and perspective, and thank you for sharing it.
To me, church attendance is about making the in/out group very clear. You may feel close to different political views based on your single church or flavor of Christianity, but that's still a pretty limited group.
I think church membership has become undesirable because 1) fewer people believe in the supernatural and 2) the stated positions of many major religions on issues of abortion and inclusion.
It's not about religion per se, but about a common religion which has rituals that make people meet each other more, piercing their bubble of like-mindedness (smaller than the religion).
It's like going to a supermarket makes you see people more varied than your family circle and your chosen TV show characters. (It does not nudge you to talk to these people, though.)
I am not a religious person or church goer, but are the perspectives really that different? To me, it looks like a church is a self selected group of geographically proximate people who tend to look alike and dress alike. You don't usually see much ethnic diversity in a church photo.
It's more diverse than sitting at home, but I think exposure to a few TV shows has more diversity of thought, ethnicity, sexuality, etc., compared to going to church.
I'm not saying its bad for people to get together and talk. I see that church was an important mechanism for this in the past. However, I can't get past the negatives (supernatural belief, child abuse, kowtowing to authority, shame, ostracism) to believe it will continue to be a net positive.
What we need is more of what I think the Unitarians are after - non denominational community.
Right, but the context here is in people attending their local church. Your point is like saying that America is so diverse - it is, but how much do the different ethnicities actually interact?
Catholic churches are the most integrated denomination. And Catholics are the group most likely to intermarry between ethnicities. Speaking of my own family, my brother and I are both married to women of different ethnicities (and differing ethnicities at that).
> The only exceptions were Catholics. Catholics were almost twice as likely to be in an intermarriage and Catholics who attended services more frequently were slightly more likely to be in an intermarriage, the researchers found.
It's more than just your local parish though. When I visited Hungary, it was amazing to go to a church where I didn't speak the language, but still be able to feel totally 'at home', because it was a church, and they were saying mass. Even though it was in Hungarian, I understood exactly what was going on. Then when I visited India, which couldn't be further from Hungary, I had the same experience.
The takeaway from those articles seems to be that even the most integrated churches are still trailing average neighborhood integration numbers (which are broadly considered problematic). There has been progress, but there is still a ways to go:
> Despite progress in church integration, congregations remain far more segregated than the society in general. Dr. Dougherty, an associate professor of sociology at Baylor University, states that “congregations are looking more like their neighborhoods racially and ethnically, but they still lag behind. The average congregation was eight times less diverse racially than its neighborhood in 1998 and four times less diverse in 2012.”
The context here is whether churches are a good way for people of diverse backgrounds to engage and interact. I contend that they have unnecessary elements that make them worse than a non-religious community event (supernatural beliefs, explicit conformity of dress and thought, protecting predators, etc.)
I grew up in an Ahmedi congregation in suburban Cleveland. It was about 50% African-American and 50% post-60s Pakistani or Indian immigrants with the odd old-time immigrant family (mine) who intermarried or white converts. (My great grandfather famously had Elijah Muhammad to dinner on one of his visits to Cleveland.)
Later as I grew up I realized just how unusual that sort of integration was among any congregation, not just Christian or Islamic. When I read Vivek Bald’s book Bengali Harlem: The Lost Histories of South Asian America, I realized that actually this was the norm in the 20s-60s for South Asian immigrants of all backgrounds.
This has led to some befuddlement amongst others. A black City Councilperson in New Orleans egged a crowd on to call my cousin from Islamabad names based on his origin for trying to set up a tiny house village for homeless people in a residential neighborhood in Eastern New Orleans. I roared back at him that it pained me to see someone that looked like my grandmother beating up on my cousin, mentioned that my congregation met in a formerly AME church and kept the pews for years and shame on him for assuming we are all carpetbaggers. He turned to me and said “You are presumed to be what you look like.” I’ve never been happier to see someone lose an election.
Yeah I grew up in a Catholic church that was probably 30% vietnamese, 30% hispanic, and 40% white / everyone else. I guess my views are heavily influenced by that.
> To me, it looks like a church is a self selected group of geographically proximate people who tend to look alike and dress alike. You don't usually see much ethnic diversity in a church photo.
I agree any given local church in the US is unlikely to have a ton of ethnic diversity. And, for obvious reasons, it will have almost no religious diversity.
They do tend to have a decent amount of professional and socioeconomic diversity, though, which is also valuable.
I keep mentioning this video because it's just so good, but Roger Scruton argued that the world has turned selfish and with it we've lost beauty, which in turns means life has lost its meaning. It's a powerful, profound view and one that I can't shake off my head ever since watching it.
> Our language, our music and our manners are increasingly raucous, self-centered, and offensive, as though beauty and good taste have no real place in our lives.
> One word is written large on all these ugly things, and that word is “me.”
> My profits, my desires, my pleasures.
> And art has nothing to say in response to this except, “Yeah, go for it!”
> I think we are losing beauty and with it there is the danger that we will lose the meaning of life.
The church I went in as kid was pretty tight socially and people in it were wery like minded. And by all I heard or read about, it is pretty much standard.
> To me, church attendance is about making the in/out group very clear. You may feel close to different political views based on your single church or flavor of Christianity, but that's still a pretty limited group.
It's not really though. I mean, being Catholic (and honestly, I know so little about Protestantism that I don't really feel qualified to speak to it), there are a lot of politics in the church.
In 'the Big Sort', the author Bill Bishop talks about how Americans are dividing themselves up by geography, religion (or lack thereof), jobs, education, etc. It's like we're splitting in to two different worlds.
I've noticed it at church too. Frankly, the left-leaning Catholics have all left. We chock it up to things like abortion and sexual ethics but I don't buy it. Many right-leaning Catholics have severe disagreements with church preaching, especially on the topics of aid to foreigners, the responsibility of society with regards to health care, views on death penalty's usefulness, etc. The only difference to me, is that conservatives tend to value authority and order more, and thus remain catholic even when the church preaches things they don't like.
> 2) the stated positions of many major religions on issues of abortion and inclusion.
I guess, but man you should see my conservative friends after the priest gives a homily on immigration. If they left the church because of this, I'd accuse them of idolatry -- placing their views on immigration as more important than God. I accuse my leftist friends who leave because of abortion of the same. Independent of the religious and spiritual aspects, it seems to me to be abandoning your community, that has supported you for many years, simply because of one issue we disagree on. That's like leaving your wife because you can't agree on which style of house to buy -- at some point you need to compromise.
It's weird because my left-leaning friend's parents are often still Catholic and have the same view as my family does on remaining part of the church even if what they preach is hard. Whereas my younger friends all left.
The sad thing though is that I feel there is a lot of missed out opportunities for shared understanding. Despite classifying these parents as 'left-leaning' and myself being more 'right-leaning', I'd consider these people to be intelligent, thoughtful, and friends. Whereas with my own generation, if you label yourself a leftist, all of a sudden right-wingers are supposed to hate you, and vice versa. It just seems dehumanizing.
I'd rather chat about politics in a friendly manner with a shared set of concerns over a doughnut on Sunday morning, than in an angry social media screed. But it seems like my generation prefers the latter. And frankly, from my perspective, it feels like my left-leaning friends simply left while we stayed behind to talk.
For the people who left the church because they found some of the teachings abhorrent, I would assume they were rejecting the church's authority, not rejecting God. From their perspective it may be the church who split with God, and they are trying to stay on the path by getting away from the church.
This is coming from an areligious atheist, so I must acknowledge my lack of experience with this even though I've read about it and given it some thought.
> For the people who left the church because they found some of the teachings abhorrent, I would assume they were rejecting the church's authority, not rejecting God.
If every conservative that rejected the church's authority decided to stay at home from church, the church would be empty.
I get you don't like the church... like I really understand this viewpoint. But why reject the church goers? The pope, the bishops, the priests, sure I can see not liking them. But if you show up and talk to the church members, the ones who you grew up with, etc, what exactly is wrong with that?
Man I can't tell you how annoyed we've been with our priest, our bishops, and yes the pope. I've gone through periods of extreme doubt. I still show up for the community. Always have, and likely always will. Just stick around.
> I still show up for the community. Always have, and likely always will. Just stick around.
Why would I choose to do this somewhere that the leadership rejects me and tells me I will burn in hell? I know that many individuals within the church may not agree, but plenty will, and culture is set from the top. It's not like there aren't more social/community options than I could possibly find the time to participate in that _don't_ have religious ties.
Sorry to have to say this but anyone who tells you you’re going to hell isn’t a Christian. I left the church over similar feelings so I identify. But for the record and the benefit of anyone else who might need to hear this, you’re not going to hell.
The biblical Jesus (he’s the Christ in Christian) hung out with sailors, prostitutes and a tax collector. The fact that xtians tell people they’re going to hell in that person’s name is a disgrace. It’s not the biblical antichrist but it’s sure anti everything Jesus said and did.
If anyone reads these words and feels pain, feel free to reach out. You’re incredibly loved, at least by me and I’ll have your back no matter what.
> Sorry to have to say this but anyone who tells you you’re going to hell isn’t a Christian. I left the church over similar feelings so I identify. But for the record and the benefit of anyone else who might need to hear this, you’re not going to hell.
What did Christ say about sin and repentance?
Matthew 11:20-24: Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
> The biblical Jesus (he’s the Christ in Christian) hung out with sailors, prostitutes and a tax collector. The fact that xtians tell people they’re going to hell in that person’s name is a disgrace. It’s not the biblical antichrist but it’s sure anti everything Jesus said and did.
What did Christ say about about his role in judgement?
John 12:47-49: If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
> If anyone reads these words and feels pain, feel free to reach out. You’re incredibly loved, at least by me and I’ll have your back no matter what.
What did Paul say about pain?
2 Corinthians 7:10: For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.
Make sure the gospel you're preaching is of the Word and not of man. Many churches misrepresent the truth, but many others aren't willing to speak it.
I realize you're probably a true believer, but for a lot of people there is no truth. The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people. I don't believe in your religion or any other, but even assuming it's true, the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
> The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people...the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
Briefly:
> for a lot of people there is no truth
A lot of people don't think clearly and have been misled. Do you and I exist in some form? Are we having a conversation? There: two truths. Dismissing truth as unknowable is a kind of, shall we say, cognitive off-ramp one may use when uninterested in working harder to find it. It's also a rhetorical trick used by some to shut down conversations they don't want others to have.
> I don't believe in your religion or any other
Framing philosophy as a matter of religion is a common way to dismiss a line of inquiry before it begins. It's also a rhetorical trick, a form of tribalism, a way to "other" those whom one disagrees with.
The modern distinction between religious and irreligious matters is ultimately a contrivance. The question of the nature of reality knows no such distinction.
What matters is not what label we apply to a philosophy; what matters is whether it is true. In this sense, everyone has a religion, whether or not they label it so. In modern terms, one may call it a worldview.
> The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people...the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
That is your subjective evaluation: "poor at best." How do you know this? What research have you done into the texts available? Have you studied the original languages and ancient texts? How do these texts compare with other ancient documents, ones whose authenticity is not commonly questioned in the field? Is it legitimate to boil down an entire field of research, practiced over thousands of years, to three dismissive words?
No man can tell anyone how God will judge him. You seek forgiveness of sin through Christ and try to live accordingly. If your church is telling you you will go to hell (or guaranteeing you will not) you should find another church. That's not the same as condemning sin and trying to guide people away from it though.
John 12:47-49: "If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak."
> Why would I choose to do this somewhere that the leadership rejects me and tells me I will burn in hell?
Because of the people in the church? Because of the fact that 'the leadership' is just the guy preaching, whereas the actual community is run by everyday people (well in my experience it is).
> It's not like there aren't more social/community options than I could possibly find the time to participate in that _don't_ have religious ties.
Well that's exactly it. People say there are myriad options and then don't participate, because they don't have time. Whereas in a church, you have to go. It's an obligation. Which makes it easier for people of all backgrounds to show up.
You seem to be simultaneously arguing that it's ok to ignore the religious trappings and just treat the church as a social club, but also that the church is better than just any social club because of the religious trappings.
If you're not religiously inclined, then you can treat the church as a social club and ignore the religious trappings. It would behoove you to keep your atheism to yourself though, because the church is better than just any social club because of the religious nature. While some number of public doubters can be tolerated without negatively impacting the group, if it gets to be too large a number then the main benefit of community and fellowship would go away.
I am making a position without reference to the truth value of the religious claims because I'm not going to get into a debate on HN over whether Christanity / theism is right or wrong. I personally think that even if you are a committed atheist, church probably is a good idea anyway. If you're a western committed atheist, some denomination of Christianity is probably best
In my experience, good & satisfying relationships are rooted in trust, loyalty, and respect. I don't really see how hiding your atheism in a community exclusively for believers is anything but a massive betrayal of trust. And how is this worth spending 2 - 3 hours, likely a majority of church time, in a sermon or religious discussion you are utterly unengaged in?
Either you build a friendship on lies, or you spend most of your bonding time unengaged.
I think it's certainly possible to build a substantial relationship with a religious person when you aren't religious yourself, but I'd imagine that in such a scenario, each of you would at least respect each other enough to be honest about your core beliefs.
I can appreciate that if you still believe in their god, there's still a lot of faith and "religious trappings" you can earnestly share. For atheists and the nonreligious, IMHO this seems like terrible advice.
I believe if you're honest with yourself and follow the secular lines of reasoning you will arrive at deism pretty easily
I think atheists are just people who refuse to accept the natural conclusions.
So I don't see any need to hide your atheism really. We're all prone to folly, pride and irrationality and inconclusive thinking.
Honestly, if an atheist came to my Church and was open about it, that's fine with me. I confess doubt all the time too... It's not like I'm perfect. If the number of times my atheist friends have sincerely prayed before a big exam are any indication, I'd think most atheists have periods of extreme fervor.
But, when I've been more of an atheist, I've still found amazing value in religion, so I guess I'm probably just weird.
As I've grown up and become secure in my atheism, I realized that I have not come to my beliefs through any kind of logic or based on evidence. It's just what I believe - or don't, and the beliefs we have on matters we can't directly observe are formed in ways I don't fully understand. I cannot account for my atheism, and I don't think I have to. Similarly, I don't think you can account for your belief in God, but you also don't have to. It's a BELIEF, not a theorem to prove.
It's not like I go around thinking "there is no God", it's just not part of how I find meaning and make sense of the world.
This is not a moment of folly, just like your belief in God is not a moment of folly. It's just part of how I, and you, make sense of this confusing situation of coming into being on Earth for a little while, knowing that we won't be here for very long.
Deism requires rejecting all rationality - it's literally the point of almost all religions. Secular lines of reasoning results in science and all of the progress that has come with it. Being honest with ourselves leads to an understanding that there is no evidence of any sort of a deity - it is when we are fearful that we reach out into the void looking for someone to help us.
> Secular lines of reasoning results in science and all of the progress that has come with it
Unless you have some unknown faith by which 'progress' is good, I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion. Especially when various secular lines of reasonings reject 'progress' as a useful metric, or even a desirable thing at all.
> it is when we are fearful that we reach out into the void looking for someone to help us.
That is not true. A benevolent God is a requirement of Christianity being true. It is not a requirement of deism, which is simply the belief that there is a divine. You're conflating two things. IMO, that there is a divine is incredibly obvious. Christianity requires more of a stretch.
I don't think you have to reject the churchgoers to reject the church. Some of the people I feel closest to are devoutly religious. When we eat together I pray with them as a matter of respecting their tradition and participating in the culture, and it is an enjoyable thing to do.
The church has gone out of its way to be unwelcoming to many people, and I just don't want to be part of it. I've been to one church service where the preacher spent a large fraction of the sermon vitriolically condemning atheists. I'm not going to argue with him, but I'm also not going back for more.
I'm not trying to mess up anyone else's tradition, but if churches are shrinking and losing power I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
I'm an ex-Catholic and am likely one of the left leaning people you're talking about. I left the church because frankly, the actions of the church and its policies are so far from Jesus' teachings that I could no longer reconcile a belief in Christ with mother church.
> We chock it up to things like abortion and sexual ethics but I don't buy it.
Homophobia != sexual ethics.
After my goodbye confession with a good priest I'm still friends with, I never thought I'd have to say these words again. But here we go. Outright homophobia is not about sexual ethics, it's about hatred and closed mindedness. Can you point out a section a single section in the gospels that indicates that this is okay? Can you point out a single statement that Jesus made that implies there is anything wrong with being gay?? I can't, yet mother church won't cut the homophobia.
Or take the church's silly little pro life movement. Do you notice that it's directed against women? Pro lifers never take out billboards that say 'Men, don't have sex with women when they're drunk. That is called rape.' But they sure like to harass scared, pregnant women and/or people who have had abortions with their shitty propaganda. Can you show me one thing in the gospels that suggest that is okay??
You can't because it's not. None of this is okay. Jesus would not have approved of much of anything. Crap, you don't even have to read too far into Matthew to realize that Jesus would not have been accepting of any of this.
Catholics are supposed to worship a dude who stopped a woman from being stoned with the words 'let he without sin cast the first stone.' And here we are, stoning the gay, stoning the activists and stoning reproductive rights without so much as a thought about it. Has the church sinned?? Hundreds of thousands of abused children point to the fact that yeah, the church has sinned.
Who is the Catholic church to cast stones, particularly when the dude we're supposed to follow was really against casting stones? And why should I stick around something so actively disrespectful? Frankly, I'd rather find a community of people who think love is the solution rather than find a community who preaches love unless you fall into one of about 15,000 boxes.....
Edit - Here's another example that really gets my goat. My own archdiocese excommunicated a woman who was ordained as a priest. I know her, in fact, my Mom used to work with her. I even went out on a couple of dates with one of her daughters and she is an absolutely wonderful person. But mother church excommunicated her because she was ordained as a priest? Why can't she be part of the community that she helped build? She worked within Catholic churches for decades, hence her work with my Mom. She was removed from the community and the priest in her own parish read the most disgusting letter about her. Do you know why???
Her calling is not legitimate. Only a man's calling can be legitimate.
Let's assume that God in God's wisdom subscribes to the Harvard Business Review. If God had an organization with a really serious sexual abuse crisis and if God read the HBR, God might decide it makes sense to bring some women into leadership positions. But oh no, the Catholics know God. They had a direct line to God when they were abusing all those kids or ethnically cleansing Canada of its indigenous population.
I'm sorry but I can't even write this shit with a straight face. How is a woman's calling totally irrelevant to a point of excommunication when men can fuck children and just get moved to a new parish (for the 17th time)?
I appreciate your candor. You seem to have pretty set views, but I think they're caricatures. In particular, while pro-life work that is most visible is someone praying at a planned parenthood (and of course, the ones that harass are typically not even Catholic, since it's not just catholics in this 'movement'), the bulk of pro-life work is exceptionally boring things like collecting bottles, diapers, baby clothes, putting together mum and baby classes, etc. No one talks about this because it's not polarizing. Or take the issue of 'homophobia'. No doubt many Catholics will say insensitive things, but almost anything about the potential of homosexual acts being wrong is today conflated with homophobia. And you ask for Christ's statement on sexual orientation, but they are abundant in the gospels. You seem familiar with them, so let's start:
Matthew 19:5: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?".
As you yourself said, Christ was certainly not afraid of breaking social norms of his day. Heterosexuality was a major norm at the time. Don't you think Christ would have said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? Oh yeah, and sometimes a man will leave his father and dad and be united to his husband, because that's the same thing'. The lack of teaching on that speaks volumes, as does Christ's strictifying of existing Jewish sexual ethics, rather than loosening (in his ban on divorce).
The second thing that I see is a lack of understanding of repentance. Christ preventing the prostitute's punishment was because she had repented of her sin, not because sin is irrelevant. The same is true of the female priest. Should she repent, I'm sure she'd be welcomed back (otherwise your Gospel passage would be quite relevant). The priests who corrupted children... well this is a very long story and I know of no lay Catholics who really support the church's handling on this. But the existence of sinners doesn't take away from the utility of church. However I'll point out that the reason that happened was that the church bought too much into the mercy rhetoric that you seem to want it to buy into further. A lot of justification for moving priests was based on the assumption that (1) they had repented, (2) the church should be merciful, and (3) based on psychological understandings of sex in the 60s and 70s which were more radical than today, pedophilia was a condition that could be cured.
Anyway, I'm guessing this will fall on deaf ears and that there is an impenetrable barrier that will keep either of us from convincing the other. So to end, I'll just wish you the best. I mean that. Thanks for the response.
Inaccurate - the Greeks, for example, had institutionalized pederasty disguised as building bonds between generations. The Romans had... problematic beliefs about heterosexual sex as well.
> The lack of teaching on that speaks volumes
It speaks volumes about how incomplete the historical record is, but very little else. Did the person who wrote this passage ever even meet Christ? I'm under the impression that Chris-as-singular-historical-figure is accepted based on lighter evidence than we require for other historical figures. And that the Bible was mostly written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly existed. That's not much of a basis for strict interpretation based on what isn't present, nearly 2000 years later.
> I'm under the impression that Chris-as-singular-historical-figure is accepted based on lighter evidence than we require for other historical figures.
You're under a false impression, and are spreading a myth [0][1]. In fact, your claim is exactly backwards: Certain laypeople (you seem to be among them) demand more evidence for the historicity of Jesus than for other famous people of antiquity.
> And that the Bible was mostly written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly existed.
First, this is complete nonsense, given that ~77% of the Bible is the Old Testament, whose books have been dated to centuries BCE [1].
Second, if we charitably reinterpret your comment as referring to the New Testament, it is also false. The Book of Revelation is generally accepted by traditional scholarship to have been written during the reign of Domitian (81–96 CE) [1]. A handful (3-4) of other books are dated to 110 CE at most.
My understanding is based on the wikipedia article called "Historical Jesus", which confusingly is different than the "Historicity of Jesus". Also, a book I read a long time ago, called "Who Wrote the Bible".
I'm not purporting to be a biblical scholar, but it's clear to me that the evidence for Jesus is not as strong as, say, the evidence for Julius Caesar.
The fact that there is no direct evidence points to at least some haziness about the character. The same could be said for a number of other historical figures. It's pretty clear there are limitations to the evidence, from Wikipedia:
"The historical Jesus scholarship is bound by the following limitations:
- There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus; all existing sources are documentary.
- The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles.
- All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death.
- The New Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus.[33] The authenticity and reliability of these sources have been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[34]"
So it seems that no writings about him survive from his life, by or about him. There is no physical evidence of his existence. Most of the evidence was written by early Christians, and few of the events they write about are universally accepted. And given the propensity of religious followers to exaggerate, I don't personally put a lot of stock in much of the motivated reasoning exhibited.
His is a resume with some holes in it. Smarter and better informed people disagree with me, but I'm just processing the evidence as I see it.
What do you mean by "physical evidence"? As Bart D. Ehrman (a non-Christian New Testament scholar) explains:
The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place.
Who was the most important Jewish figure in Palestine for the entire first century (who wasn’t, say, the actual king)? There’s no doubt. Flavius Josephus. Highly placed aristocrat, military leader, political figure, eventually made a court historian by the Roman emperor himself, and our principal source of information for the Jewish people and history at the time. And how much archaeological evidence do we have of his existence? None.
So too, who is (by far) the best known Jewish cultural figure outside of Palestine in the first century? Again, not much competition: Philo of Alexandria, brilliant philosopher, massively prolific author, political activist, known even at the highest levels of government in Rome itself. How much archaeological evidence do we have of his existence? Again, none. The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.
The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. "These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information," Ehrman says. "But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases."
Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.
Regarding the apocryphal texts, they're called apocryphal for a reason, and do not form part of the Biblical canon.
Dude, you started this out by calling my views caricatures and end it with wishing me the best?? The cognitive dissonance is very very strong in you.
I’m not going to reply to anything this disrespectful. Fake people aren’t worth my time.
Edit - A great Jesuit priest and mentor once said to be very careful with people who start with an insult, move on to a bible quote and end with good wishes. I understand his position. Frankly, it’s a shame you couldn’t be more respectful - we could have learned from each other’s theology.
> Or take the church's silly little pro life movement. Do you notice that it's directed against women? Pro lifers never take out billboards that say 'Men, don't have sex with women when they're drunk. That is called rape.'
> And here we are, stoning the gay, stoning the activists and stoning reproductive rights without so much as a thought about it.
> Only a man's calling can be legitimate.
> If God had an organization with a really serious sexual abuse crisis and if God read the HBR, God might decide it makes sense to bring some women into leadership positions.
> They had a direct line to God when they were abusing all those kids or ethnically cleansing Canada of its indigenous population.
To me, church attendance is about making the in/out group very clear. You may feel close to different political views based on your single church or flavor of Christianity, but that's still a pretty limited group.
I think church membership has become undesirable because 1) fewer people believe in the supernatural and 2) the stated positions of many major religions on issues of abortion and inclusion.