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.
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.