You've outlined many of the reasons many former practising Christians no longer attend church.

That does not necessarily mean they no longer believe. But may not believe the current version of biblical based belief, but, may in fact look back to the practises of the original esoteric Christians and how they practised their faith in simple solidarity and sharing in their homes minus huge edifices to glorify God. God's own creations does that in huge spades.

Jesus went to some lengths to confirm he was not God the Father but that he was merely an instrument for the Father who worked in him. One only needs to gaze at the night sky to believe in a creator or divine intelligence as the overseeing intelligent designer.

As for the teachings of the master, the golden code is universal to most religious philosophies, as is the good Samaritan parable. I believe if those two evocations guide you through life and try to follow that example, you will be defined as a good person worthy of heaven.

Today's churches (none of which I attend) are little more than very wealthy political organizations seeking to assert power and authority over devotees and their pocketbooks/bank balances. With some even trying, with pulpit pounding persuasion, to influence voting intentions/outcomes.
Alan B.

There are no laws stopping you from believing whatever you wish.
Even though it may fly in the face of Science.

What can "genuine believers" do that they are not already doing? Proselytize? I imagine that would go down as well as harassment from tin-rattlers or Amway distributors .

We just had a poster in the other section whingeing about dastardly "Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses" leaving Bibles at people's "front doors".

And why would a 90 year old bother himself with the 'brave new world" that he won't be part of for much longer. It's like the 85 year old Klaus Scwab trying to ruin the economy and reduce most of the population to serfdom.

The only thing to "steadily fade away" is Christian belief; climate hysteria and Woke has replaced it. I regret that, too; but it is far too late by at least two generations to even halt the decline, let alone resurrect a dying religion. The last time that was attempted was during Moral Rearmament and Billy Graham, who died at the age of 100 in 2018.

Well it looks like churches in general no longer represent religion or God. That is not a blemish on religion or God, it just means that churches today are no longer religious, thus should no longer be misleadingly referred to as "religions".

---

Dear Ateday,

«There are no laws stopping you from believing whatever you wish. Even though it may fly in the face of Science.»

What makes you place, out of the blue, such an unrelated statement in this particular thread? Or does it reflect your belief that scientists never commit any crimes and should be considered a moral benchmark?

What passes today for "science" values the material, physical, objective world above all and is not interested in anything else - what a narrow interest, what poverty of spirit!

Alan B
I agree the glorious night sky is something to behold. However my light bulb moment was on a bitter cold day with snow on the ground.
I wandered near holly trees and there snowdrops peeped from the snow, so to this day I remember that day and wondered of creation.
I do not attend church now but glad of my Sunday school, girl guides etc and pleased they continue in my town, as well as boy scouts.

To me Christmas is a day of mourning.

I mourn the suffering due to the hate promoted by the words of Jesus. Possibly he did not say those words and they were ascribed to him by those who wrote the New Testament.

Matthew 12:30 “He that is not with me is against me;” Those words make an enemy of those who do not follow. I do not wish to follow Jesus, but I do not wish to be the enemy of those who choose to follow him. Those words make those who do not follow him an enemy.

Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Why should Jesus make the unreasonable demand that family bonds should be less strong than bonds to him? Why set up such a competition?

I mourn the loss of history:

Much of human history is irreparably lost to us. In addition to the lost history by circumstances there is loss by design.

From Grayling’s "The History of Philosophy”:

"There is a wall standing between us and the world of antiquity: the period of decline and fall of the Roman Empire and the rise to dominance of Christianity. Edward Gibbon connected the two phenomena, blaming the former on the latter. He is in significant part right. Remember that in 313 CE the Emperor Constantine gave Christianity legal status and protection by the Edict of Milan and not long afterwards, in 380 CE, the Emperor Theodosius I decreed by the Edict of Thessalonica that Christianity was to be the official religion of the Empire outlawing others. The change brought rapid results. From the fourth century of the Common Era (CE, formerly cited as AD) onwards a vast amount of the literature and material culture of
antiquity was lost, a great deal of it purposefully destroyed. Christian zealots smashed statues and temples, defaced paintings and burned 'pagan' books, in an orgy of effacement of previous culture that lasted for several centuries.

continued

continued

It has been estimated that as much as 90 per cent of the
literature of antiquity perished in the onslaught. The Christians took the fallen stones of temples to build their churches, and over-wrote the manuscripts of the philosophers and poets with their scripture texts. It is hard to comprehend, still less to forgive, the immense loss of literature, philosophy, history and general culture this represented. Moreover, at the time Christianity existed in a number of mutually hostile and competing versions, and the effort - eventually successful - to achieve a degree of consensus on a 'right' version required treating the others as heresies and aberrations requiring suppression, including violent suppression."

There are other examples of the deliberate destruction of the records of the past. Christianity is not the only culprit.

I mourn the loss of thinkers and scientists. The murder of Hypatia, a woman who was the greatest mathematician, astronomer and mathematician of her time by a Christian mob in 415 AD, the burning at the stake of Servetus, a polymath who discovered pulmonary circulation and doubted the Trinity in 1553 AD, the burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno, a polymath who speculated that there are other solar systems and other worlds besides ours in 1600 and the murder of Vanini in 1619 are examples of the fate of such thinkers. Vanini had a great mind. He saw the universe as governed by natural laws and humans and apes as having a common ancestry. His end was especially brutal. In November 1618, he was arrested and, after a prolonged trial, was condemned to have his tongue cut out, to be strangled at the stake and to have his body burned to ashes. The sentence was executed on 9 February 1619.

I mourn the suffering and anguish of Jews. The Nazis didn’t invent Jew hatred. Centuries of Christian persecution preceded Nazism. Nazism exploited a feeling already endemic in the German psyche. The Holocaust was a culmination of Christian ideology.

I mourn the destruction of indigenous people and cultures by Christian imperialists and missionaries.

continued

continued

I mourn the loss of the ancient philosophies of Stoicism, Epicureanism and Cynicism to be replaced by the superstition of Christianity.

I mourn the suffering and death in the Wars of the Reformation where Christians killed Christians.

I mourn the suffering and horrible deaths caused by the Inquisition.
A number of years ago I was in Lubeck, Germany during the Christmas season. In Lubeck are twin towers with a passageway from one to the other near the top. At the bottom of one of the towers is a torture museum exhibiting thumbscrews, rack, iron maiden and other instruments. As I gazed in horror and fascination the strains of the carol, “Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht” drifted in the window. Thinking of the Inquisition it seemed a very Christian moment to me.

I regard Christmas as a day of mourning. I am fascinated by Christianity and have read a bit of its history. One of the books I have read is a A History of Christianity by MacCulloch.

Diarmaid Ninian John MacCulloch (born 31 October 1951) is an English historian and academic, specialising in ecclesiastical history and the history of Christianity. Since 1995, he has been a fellow of St Cross College, Oxford; he was formerly the senior tutor. Since 1997, he has been Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford.

Though ordained a deacon in the Church of England, he declined ordination to the priesthood because of the church's attitude to homosexuality. In 2009 he encapsulated the evolution of his religious beliefs: "I was brought up in the presence of the Bible, and I remember with affection what it was like to hold a dogmatic position on the statements of Christian belief. I would now describe myself as a candid friend of Christianity." MacCulloch sits on the editorial board of the Journal of Ecclesiastical History.

continued

continued

2 quotes from his book:

"I seek to give weight in these narratives to the tangled and often tragic story of the relations between Christianity and its mother-monotheism, Judaism, as well as with its mother-monotheistic younger cousin, Islam. For most of its existence, Christianity has been the most intolerant of world faiths, doing its best to eliminate all competitors, with Judaism a qualified exception, for which (thanks to some thoughts from Augustine of Hippo) it found space to serve its own theological and social purposes." P. 4

"I still appreciate the seriousness which a religious mentality brings to the mystery and misery of human existence, and I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species." P. 11

Merry Christmas is an oxymoron.

One cannot live in a vacuum but must believe in something. And that is not myth and fable that for the most part is true of all religious philosophies. Christian, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.

Even those whose teachings are founded on a grain of truth. But then persecute that which is born different

Believe in something we must because we cannot exist in a vacuum. That something is the mighty irrefutable truth.

It is not plausible theory. A theory remains a theory until and if proven, at which time it ceases to be theory, but the truth.
Alan B.

Dear David F.,

«To me Christmas is a day of mourning.»

Are you aware that Jesus could not have been born on Christmas day, not according to the Biblical story anyway, but was most likely born around June (the pilgrimage festival of Shavuot, as nobody goes on pilgrimage or is otherwise expected to walk such distances in winter with all the rain, mud, even snow)?

Are you aware that Christmas evolved from a pagan festival, celebrating the return of the sun (in the northern hemisphere)?

«I mourn the suffering due to the hate promoted by the words of Jesus. Possibly he did not say those words and they were ascribed to him by those who wrote the New Testament.»

And even if he did say those words, they must have been said in a particular context to particular disciples and not out of hate, a context which now is likely lost forever.

Jesus cannot be held responsible for the stupid misdeeds of those who claimed to be his followers hundreds of years later (including the faking of his birthday).

This essay provides a unique Understanding of the function of religious practice on the well-being of the body.
http://www.beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/stresschemistry.html

Dear Alan B.,

I don’t believe in any religion and do not live in a vacuum. I feel freer having discarded all religious beliefs. Religion is a way of explaining our world in a pre-scientific age. It no longer serves any useful function but is only a relic of tribalism and a form of superstition. The scientific method is a good way of finding out about things. I believe that it is good to have friends and family, to be a part of society, to doubt, to be skeptical, to appreciate nature, science and art, to learn and to be engaged in trying to make the world better even if it is limited at 97 to trying to be patient and kind. I am sure that some of what I ‘know’ isn’t so and also accept that my areas of ignorance must remain infinite.

A scientific theory never becomes the truth. Newton’s Laws of motion were accepted until superseded by Einstein’s relativity. Scientific theories are only provisionally true at the current state of knowledge. Religion provides certainty. Science doesn’t. That is the beauty of science, and the ugliness of religion. To deal with the uncertainty of the future is to deal with reality. Science deals with the real world. Religion deals with a fantasy world.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I noted your comments.

Dear ttbn,

You wrote: The only thing to "steadily fade away" is Christian belief.

The predictions of its demise have been made before. In Dover Beach, Matthew Arnold wrote:

“The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.”

The poem was published in 1867, and Christianity is alive and well in today’s world. It’s not going to go away in the near future. I would welcome its demise but am not holding my breath.

David F,
there were a few purges of some works of art identified as idolatrous. But while I don't know much about the author you're quoting - I feel like it is biased. Official church organisations preserved knowledge rather than destroying it. Most of the copies of ancient philosophy were preserved by government funded church organisations and libraries (not quite 'universities' as we think of them today.) They copied them out faithfully.

They valued the ancient texts and not only studied them but copied them out and preserved them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_university

Try this podcast for much more
http://undeceptions.com/podcast/byzantine-empire/

You sound like you could possibly believe in the "Dark Ages" - but this is a fallacy and no professional historians would use that term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

Guess what? Thinking scientists, philosophers, historians and other academics can study a variety of disciplines and yet still trust in the ancient eyewitness and biographical texts of the New Testament. Science studies the material universe, philosophy the rules of logic and experience of knowledge, and theology the revealed claims of a bunch of Galilean fisherman (and a doctor) and a Jewish scholar around 2000 years ago. They saw stuff that changed their lives and contradicted the 'normal' expectations their Jewish faith. They changed as a result.

Dear Max Green,

Ancient knowledge was both preserved and destroyed. Scribes used to use palimpsests, ancient parchments with ancient works that they would destroy by copying over. Pagan Temples were definitely destroyed. With the exception of Ireland conversions to Christianity after the fall of the Roman Empire were effected by compulsion and violence. Grayling, the author I quoted, has a negative view of Christianity. Probably, any author who finds it worthwhile to write on a subject has a view of it. I think that a negative view of Christianity is warranted. It has a bloody history of violence and persecution with crusades, the Inquisition, the wars of the Reformation, destruction of native cultures, enslavement of native peoples and pogroms. Hitler said he was carrying on the work of the church, and I think that was one of his accurate statements. The Nazi horrors were a consequence of Christian hate.

We really don't know what the Jewish followers of Jesus would have produced. Most of them were destroyed. Paul created a new religion by releasing the followers of Jesus from the strictures of Judaism. As a child I went to a US public school. I was expected to participate in various Easter and Christmas activities which I resented as my family were not Christian.

Considering various Christian beliefs such as life after death, a god in three parts and a virgin birth it seems to me like nonsense which no longer should be accepted by a reasonable person. I no longer believe in any religion or any deity.

In my opinion Christianity has done more harm than good. What people thought in a pre-scientific age two thousand years does not outweigh the horrible history of Christianity.

As far as the Dark Ages human progress didn't stop although thinkers who did not accept the superstitions of Christianity were persecuted, tortured and executed.

Christian faith is not based in natural sciences, but it is accepted in integrity in business. David F is a critic but has no alternative positive faith.

Dear Josephus,

Indeed, Christian (or any other) faith is not based in natural sciences, but in the science of the Divine.

It was an historical error for the Christian Church to involve itself and provide opinions in matters of natural science. It brought poor reputation for Christianity and God and as natural science proved correct, the ensuing criticism of the Church sadly caused most Christians to lose their faith.

When asked on matters of natural science, the Church should have instead responded: "we have better things to do with our precious time, we are always busy serving God and singing His glories, we shall not unnecessarily distract our minds and waste our time on the mundane!"

Dear Josephus,

I see no need to provide an alternative to faith. To believe without proof as faith asks us to do is to revere ignorance. To doubt and question leads us to knowledge. Faith leads to atrocity. Many have died and been killed in wars, pogroms and other manifestations of religion. Faith is a negative phenomenon. It is the handmaiden of ignorance. Believers in faith use such nonsense phrases as the 'science of the divine' as though superstitious belief is science.

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment were advances for humanity precisely because they were products of the discarding of faith. The Renaissance looked to the knowledge of the ancient world before Christianity clutched Europe in its superstitious grasp. The Enlightenment was a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. The apostles of faith would return us to the medieval world of unreason.

Thanks Yuyutsu,
I see David f, married his wife for his established scientific reasons and not for faith in their future. He did not believe in the business he started; it is a wonder he failed? He denies the right of the entrepreneur to believe in the future he could not perceive. He does not believe in moral responsibility, and honesty in relationships such as the teachings of the ten commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ as they are not based in observable science so you can prove and move forward. He has never applied forgiveness for his past as it is based on religion. He does not understand grace as it is benefit where it is not deserved as it is a religious faith concept.

He applies his understanding to the horrific wrongs of history committed by humans.

Dear Josephus,

Your posting concerning me is inaccurate since you do not know me. However, you have the power of faith not to need knowledge of me or anything else. You have the power of faith which is the ability to be certain of your belief when it is not based on evidence. You brought in Jesus Christ who cursed a fig tree because it wouldn't bear out of season. That was stupid. Of course, the Bible is an unreliable chronicle, and maybe he wasn't that stupid. The ten commandments are not a reliable guide to behavior since the first five concern relations with a deity which doesn't exist. Josephus, I do not share your superstitions, and you have no reason to think I do.

I have read about 'the horrific wrongs of history'. Many of them were committed because the humans who committed them thought they were following the dictates of God. The Inquisition, the destruction of pagan temples and art, the Crusades, the persecution and murder of Jews and other non-Christians and the burning of heretics and witches at the stake were the consequence of Christians who thought that's what God wants. The atrocities were the product of faith.

Dear Josephus,

It is not nice, not fair and not true to claim that David F. has no faith.

Just because David does not consciously recognise and/or admit his faith does not imply that his faith is less than mine or yours: one who has an absolutely perfect faith is a saint and I am not. Even Moses did not have complete faith, because when he was told to speak to the rock and ask it to bring forth water for his people, he instead struck the rock with his staff (twice).

---

Dear David F.,

«To believe without proof as faith asks us to do is to revere ignorance.»

I do believe that Einstein's general relativity theory is correct and that he could prove that well, even while his proof is presently beyond me.

That makes me ignorant, but not a reverer of ignorance (I don't mind knowing Einstein's proof, I have no objection to it, it's just not high enough on my priority-list to afford the necessary time to study).

«Faith leads to atrocity»

Faith in worldly things can lead to anything, including atrocities.

Faith in God has nothing to do with worldly affairs.

«wars, pogroms and other manifestations of religion.»

Manifestations of misrepresentation of God.

«Believers in faith use such nonsense phrases as the 'science of the divine' as though superstitious belief is science.»

'Science' also means [Oxford]:
2. [ARCHAIC] knowledge of any kind. "his rare science and his practical skill"

This is how I used the word, having nothing to do with physical/natural science.

The first commandments define character higher than failed humans and to which we ought to aspire. True Worship is not idle words of praise, but the appreciation of aspects of character to which Humanity is linked. We are made in the image of the Divine, to which we ascribe fullness of living and wisdom.

To not believe we have a moral responsibility to character higher than ourselves allows us to believe in any behavior is acceptable. A train that runs on the tracks the designer designed for it is its purpose, a train that has no barriers where it goes is a monster.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I appreciate your comments concerning me. I cannot know everything (although I would like to) so I must accept some things on faith. Since I don't share Josephus' faith. He characterizes me as faithless and as lacking in certain qualities. I try to limit the areas that I accept by faith, but I cannot eliminate them completely. Maybe that's good. I think Josephus has the feeling of many people that those who share their delusions are more virtuous.

I don't share his particular faith as I think it is largely nonsense with a horrible history. Yet, I am sure if we compared all the beliefs unsupported by evidence that Josephus, you and I have we would find some, maybe many, in common. Online opinion is not a venue favorable to discovering other elements of our mental makeup that we share, but I think they exist.

I appreciate your clarification of your use of the word, science.

Yuyutsu wrote: “Faith in worldly things can lead to anything, including atrocities.”

The above statement shows that Yuyutsu is trapped in superstitious belief. There are only worldly things. The belief that there is something other than the things of this world gives ministers, priests, rabbis, lamas, imams and other clergy power over superstitious people who believe in such things. Josephus shares Yuyutsu’s superstitious belief. He questions the morality of those who do not share his superstition and believe in his non-existent deity.

The religious con man rides supreme because he encourages the superstitious to distrust the enlightened ones who see through his cons.

Those who accept superstition believe that those who do not are somewhat less moral. Morality doesn’t come from laws laid down by a supernatural being. It is a way of living in society. If you are honest and have a record of keeping your word you will be trusted. All individuals are not honest. There are men and women who will con people and cheat. There are mechanisms in law to deal with such people. Humans have to be wary of such individuals. When such an individual dons the robes of clergy it becomes easier for him or her to cheat and steal.

Elmer Gantry is a literary creation of Sinclair Lewis who exemplifies such a con man.

One adage comes to mind: When they talk about God, hold on to your wallet. As Barnum said, “There’s a sucker born every minute and two to take them.”

There is no evidence for the existence of supernatural entities. Those who want you to take on that superstitious belief make a virtue of faith. Faith should always be a provisional matter. It should be given conditionally and withdrawn when it is proven to be unjustified.

The sanctity of doubt is a virtue in the real world.

Faith founded in reality is not in conflict with intelligent science, it is in a different realm. Currently we have people believing that a baby is not human until 28 days after birth. The Bible teaches a human is such at conception and agrees with intelligent genetic science. We have people peddling a science that a child can choose their gender and an industry believing that. The Bible states there is only two genders, and they are determined at conception.

Whose science do we establish a society upon? Without a moral compass anything is considered science.

Dear David F.,

«There are only worldly things.»

That is a definition, yes.

"Things", be they shoe-laces or deities, are necessarily worldly.

The world of things is governed by the laws of nature - some already discovered by natural-science, some yet to be discovered and others that may never be discovered (for lack of evidence, for being too expensive to explore or for lack of time before humanity is extinguished).

Everyone wants to he happy.

When one believes (itself a superstition) that their happiness depends on the state of the things of the world, then they naturally tend to study and manipulate the things of the world towards whatever they believe is going to bring them that happiness.

Religion teaches that this is not true.
Religion teaches that everlasting happiness comes only from union with God (which is not a thing).

A con man is not religious: a con man shares that superstition (that happiness comes from the world of things) with his/her conned people, believing that worldly following (power) and/or money and/or sex is the one thing, of all things of the world, that will maximise their happiness!

Beware of people who claim to be religious, yet attempt to teach about the world of things: had they been true people of Faith and God, then why would they bother about things and waste their time teaching about the world?

«Those who accept superstition believe that those who do not are somewhat less moral.»

Religion teaches that we are not born moral, that becoming moral is a struggle, that no matter what we believe, morality is still a faraway goal and success can only come once and to the extent we no longer desire things, for otherwise we would even be violating morality in our desperate need to obtain/retain things. Only the complete breaking of that superstition as if things can give us happiness can give us a chance to find God and be happy.