Why young people leave church

[rumborak]

Literal, yes.  For all mankind, no.  It is directed at an individual, which should at least raise the question of whether it was what that specific individual needed, or if it is something commanded of everybody.  Jesus also told ten lepers to go wash in the river and told a blind man to let Jesus put mud in his eyes.  Are those universal commands too?  We have to put them in context.  Here, three facts strongly suggest that the only reasonable reading of that passage is that it was for that man only.  First, it was not the first thing Jesus commanded the man.  Jesus only told him this after Jesus had already told him what he must do (which was NOT "go and sell all your stuff"), and the man responded with, "Oh, I'm good then.  I've got that covered."  [paraphrase]  Second, Jesus frequently cited David and Abraham, both of whom were rich, as positive examples.  Third, Jesus does not command other rich men he comes into contact with, such as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, for example, to sell all their stuff.  It simply cannot be argued that this was a universal command.

However, in the abstract, as Yesh mentioned, Christians are commanded in several passages to give up anything that gets in the way of God in their lives, whether it be money, power, or even family.  Although it is never explicitly stated, the context of Jesus' statement to the rich young ruler requires the reader to infer that love of money was precisely what was standing in the rich young ruler's way of serving God.  For others, such as Joseph and Nicodemus, it was not.

In the end, both interpretations are possible, the above and mine (as evidenced in this thread). What it comes down to is whether you want to see these examples as separate, non-related events, or whether you view them as pieces of an over-arching theme. You (bosky) and WW are insanely dismissive about any of the competing theories, but monks across the world viewed it the same, that Jesus asked for rejection of "normal" life.

As you say even yourself, "Christians are commanded in several passages to give up anything that gets in the way of God in their lives". But, let's be honest, do you really think the average modern Christian would have passed the muster as set by Jesus? I just have a really hard time imagining that an itinerant prophet who himself rejected everything and lived in what is best described as a commune, would view the life of luxury and comfort in modern society as NOT "getting in the way of God".

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

What it comes down to is whether you want to see these examples as separate, non-related events, or whether you view them as pieces of an over-arching theme. You (bosky) and WW are insanely dismissive about any of the competing theories, but monks across the world viewed it the same, that Jesus asked for rejection of "normal" life.

To be fair, all of those monasteries are voluntary, and none of those monks have ever preached to anyone that everyone should be a monk.  If some people think that, for them, the path to the kingdom involves giving up everything and joining a monastery, then it does.  For them.

I would suspect that the monks would agree with us instead of you on this topic.

[William Wallace]

I finally get to say it, rumborak. I've made a good case from the text, scholars agree...and so does Hef, DTF Bible geek extraordinaire. Wham-my!

[eric42434224]

I finally get to say it, rumborak. I've made a good case from the text, scholars agree...and so does Hef, DTF Bible geek extraordinaire. Wham-my!

Just from my point of view of course...but by this response, I really dont think you get it.  You are all about showing your interpretation to be "correct".  We arent saying you arent correct...just that might not be correct.  We are merely saying that there are many varying and valid interpretations.  To be so smug in yours is pretty off-putting.

[William Wallace]

Just from my point of view of course...but by this response, I really dont think you get it.  You are all about showing your interpretation to be "correct".  We arent saying you arent correct...just that might not be correct.  We are merely saying that there are many varying and valid interpretations.

How do you know that? Have you researched all these "valid" interpretations?

 

 To be so smug in yours is pretty off-putting.

I truly don't care. 

[Scheavo]

Just from my point of view of course...but by this response, I really dont think you get it.  You are all about showing your interpretation to be "correct".  We arent saying you arent correct...just that might not be correct.  We are merely saying that there are many varying and valid interpretations.

How do you know that? Have you researched all these "valid" interpretations?

Here's one for you, that you're not considering:

Interpreting the Bible not as the word of God, but as someone's personal philosophy. No amount of research into the Bible is going to give you that answer, and such an outlook drastically changes how you interpret and read the Bible.

[eric42434224]

How do you know that? Have you researched all these "valid" interpretations?
 

Obviously, neither have you.
EDIT: as sheavo points out above.

I truly don't care. 

That is obvious.  Im sure jesus would love that attitude. 

[rumborak]

Frankly, I skip over most post of your posts these days, WW. You oscillate between hidden personal attacks and smugness born out of intellectual laziness.

rumborak

[bosk1]

That is obvious.  Im sure jesus would love that attitude. 

Not saying WW is right or not, but the thinly veiled "I don't particularly like what you have to say, so I'm sure my misconception of who Jesus is wouldn't like it either" argument is pretty weak.

[William Wallace]

Here's one for you, that you're not considering:

Interpreting the Bible not as the word of God, but as someone's personal philosophy. No amount of research into the Bible is going to give you that answer, and such an outlook drastically changes how you interpret and read the Bible.

More post-modernist, Woodstock-attending, I'm-okay-you're-okay pseudo philosophy. Describing the Bible as the word of God is an anachronism adopted way after the facts by the church. It's a history book that describes events, wait for it, rooted in history. As such, it's open to critical study from many different perspectives. But to suggest that that prohibits us from determining what actually happened is not an argument. You're confusing facts with their interpretations, and historians have long rejected your position as inadequate.

That is obvious.  Im sure jesus would love that attitude. 

Ironically, yes, he'd probably find it acceptable. Engaging in challenge-riposte, as it's know, was very common in the cultural world of the Bible. Jesus even engaged in the process.

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Calling the Ph.Ds of his day hypocrites and ignoramuses. Man, how un-Christian of Jesus.

[Scheavo]

Here's one for you, that you're not considering:

Interpreting the Bible not as the word of God, but as someone's personal philosophy. No amount of research into the Bible is going to give you that answer, and such an outlook drastically changes how you interpret and read the Bible.

More post-modernist, Woodstock-attending, I'm-okay-you're-okay pseudo philosophy. Describing the Bible as the word of God is an anachronism adopted way after the facts by the church. It's a history book that describes events, wait for it, rooted in history. As such, it's open to critical study from many different perspectives. But to suggest that that prohibits us from determining what actually happened is not an argument. You're confusing facts with their interpretations, and historians have long rejected your position as inadequate.

So, now the Bible is a history book? Then why are you reading it theologically / religiously? If you want to read the bible to uncover the history of the time, you have to leave God out of the fucking equation. I have never once said that the Bible isn't somewhat historically accurate, I'm quite sure a man, named something like Jesus, created a movement, and got executed. That's a completely different matter than saying that the Bible is a religious text, and that reading it can get you closer to some spiritual truth about existence.

Proving that the Bible accurately describes some historical events in no way, shape or form prove that the rest of the ethical, moral and religious aspects of the Bible are thus proven to be accurate. I can't even fathom how you can think that this is true. 

Didn't Jesus teach humility? Or is that too going to be swept away under some guise of context?

[eric42434224]

That is obvious.  Im sure jesus would love that attitude. 

Not saying WW is right or not, but the thinly veiled "I don't particularly like what you have to say, so I'm sure my misconception of who Jesus is wouldn't like it either" argument is pretty weak.

You thought that was my arguement?
HA!  It wasnt an arguement.
Hence the    after it.
Kind of surprised you and WW took it so seriously.

[William Wallace]

Here's one for you, that you're not considering:

Interpreting the Bible not as the word of God, but as someone's personal philosophy. No amount of research into the Bible is going to give you that answer, and such an outlook drastically changes how you interpret and read the Bible.

More post-modernist, Woodstock-attending, I'm-okay-you're-okay pseudo philosophy. Describing the Bible as the word of God is an anachronism adopted way after the facts by the church. It's a history book that describes events, wait for it, rooted in history. As such, it's open to critical study from many different perspectives. But to suggest that that prohibits us from determining what actually happened is not an argument. You're confusing facts with their interpretations, and historians have long rejected your position as inadequate.

So, now the Bible is a history book?

It always has been. The fact that this is news to you doesn't actually make it news.

Then why are you reading it theologically / religiously? If you want to read the bible to uncover the history of the time, you have to leave God out of the fucking equation.

No. That's the entire point, making arguments in defense of the theological and ethical claims based on the available evidence.

I have never once said that the Bible isn't somewhat historically accurate, I'm quite sure a man, named something like Jesus, created a movement, and got executed. That's a completely different matter than saying that the Bible is a religious text, and that reading it can get you closer to some spiritual truth about existence.

Why can't it be a religious and historical text? I see no good reason why the two must be separated.

Proving that the Bible accurately describes some historical events in no way, shape or form prove that the rest of the ethical, moral and religious aspects of the Bible are thus proven to be accurate. I can't even fathom how you can think that this is true.

I would agree, for example, that the Bible's accurate description of the crucifixion in no way vindicates the resurrection accounts. I've never done that. Though I've argued that the religious aspects can be adequately defended on historical grounds. Just so we're clear, are you suggesting that there's no way to know what actually happened in the First Century, or that the theological ideas can't be supported by history?

Didn't Jesus teach humility? Or is that too going to be swept away under some guise of context?

Yes, that pesky context does have a way of eliminating misconceptions. But that's no excuse to avoid my defense of how I deal with people who are skeptical of Christianity. And some vague reference to humility doesn't cut it.

[bosk1]

If you want to read the bible to uncover the history of the time, you have to leave God out of the fucking equation. 

    How would you do that exactly since the Bible is basically a historical biography of God.  That would be like reading a biography of Abraham Lincoln, and saying, "well, this civil war stuff is cool, and I like the parts about John Wilkes Boothe, but I'm going to just skip right over the parts about Abe and make this a quick read."

[Scheavo]

If you want to read the bible to uncover the history of the time, you have to leave God out of the fucking equation. 

    How would you do that exactly since the Bible is basically a historical biography of God.  That would be like reading a biography of Abraham Lincoln, and saying, "well, this civil war stuff is cool, and I like the parts about John Wilkes Boothe, but I'm going to just skip right over the parts about Abe and make this a quick read."

Actually, that's my point. WW was basically trying to take God out of the Bible, becuase my point was that you are both reading it assuming that God is a relevant factor in the Bible. As an agnostic, I completely disagree with the assessment that the Bible is a biography of "God," as I don't believe in the existence of God. Which drastically changes how I interpret the Bible, and it drastically changes how both of you interpret the Bible. For me, it's a historical biography of some dude, and that's a big difference.

Don't you see how your faith is the only thing that allows you to make that statement, that it's a biography of God? Only to a Christian and a believer is the NT a biography of God.

It always has been. The fact that this is news to you doesn't actually make it news.

Then why are you reading it theologically / religiously? If you want to read the bible to uncover the history of the time, you have to leave God out of the fucking equation.

No. That's the entire point, making arguments in defense of the theological and ethical claims based on the available evidence.

But see, now you're changing the issue. History and theology are completely different area's of knowledge; one requires faith, one does not. Like I already argued before, the Hindu's have just as great of history as yours, and their text also pretends to be religious and theological in nature; yet the two vastly disagree, and the only way for you to assume that the historical proving of events gives any credibility to any theological or ethical claim is to already assume the existence of God. If I believed God existed, if, then it follows that a historical recounting of those events is evidence for anything theological or ethical.

I mean, does proving Plato or Socrates existed, and learning about their culture, history, etc, in any way verify or make true their ethical theories? The two are disjointed events; history is simply what happened, whereas ethics is really non-temporal.

I have never once said that the Bible isn't somewhat historically accurate, I'm quite sure a man, named something like Jesus, created a movement, and got executed. That's a completely different matter than saying that the Bible is a religious text, and that reading it can get you closer to some spiritual truth about existence.

Why can't it be a religious and historical text? I see no good reason why the two must be separated.

They can be both, but it can still be historical without being religious. For it to be a religious text (as in in true) requires a faith in God existence, specifically the Christian god. I don't find it surprising that you see now good reason, becuase you believe in God.

Proving that the Bible accurately describes some historical events in no way, shape or form prove that the rest of the ethical, moral and religious aspects of the Bible are thus proven to be accurate. I can't even fathom how you can think that this is true.

I would agree, for example, that the Bible's accurate description of the crucifixion in no way vindicates the resurrection accounts. I've never done that. Though I've argued that the religious aspects can be adequately defended on historical grounds. Just so we're clear, are you suggesting that there's no way to know what actually happened in the First Century, or that the theological ideas can't be supported by history?

That the theological idea's can't be proven by history; proven being specifically used, because you can support your theology given history. If you believe in God, then historical events could certainly be used in support of your faith, but it is not proof of God's existence, and so it is not a way to ascertain the proper way to interpret the Bible.

Didn't Jesus teach humility? Or is that too going to be swept away under some guise of context?

Yes, that pesky context does have a way of eliminating misconceptions. But that's no excuse to avoid my defense of how I deal with people who are skeptical of Christianity. And some vague reference to humility doesn't cut it.

Your actual defense of your argument is fine, I'm just asking that you not be so smug and condescending about it. "Freshmen-level philosophy," and all that nonsense, is not your argument, it's a way for you to try and belittle me, and is in no way humble.

[bosk1]

Only to a Christian and a believer is the NT a biography of God.

Well, not really.  It is a biography of God whether anyone believes it or not, just like a biography of Abraham Lincoln is a biography of Abraham Lincoln whether I believe it or not.  But I can read it, and examine the evidence it presents, and the external historical evidence, and decide whether or not I believe it is true.  That's pretty much what faith is.  Most just don't recognize that they are exercising it every day.

[William Wallace]

Only to a Christian and a believer is the NT a biography of God.

Well, not really.  It is a biography of God whether anyone believes it or not, just like a biography of Abraham Lincoln is a biography of Abraham Lincoln whether I believe it or not.  But I can read it, and examine the evidence it presents, and the external historical evidence, and decide whether or not I believe it is true.  That's pretty much what faith is.  Most just don't recognize that they are exercising it every day.

Yeah, this.

Scheavo, I think we're getting somewhere. We were talking past each other a bit. My point is that my arguments in defense of Christianity don't assume anything. I can make a good case for the miraculous claims in the NT based specifically on what we know about the events. In fact, that's why I find your arguments so objectionable. If the those claims can be validated, then I don't have to start with "assuming God exists..." As I said, I would never dream of arguing that because Jesus was a real person that by default he's the son of god.

Personally, I have no problem walking away from the faith. I nearly did once and only returned to it after my intellect was satisfied. You're right to point out that the way we accumulate knowledge is subjective, but I don't see a reason why that prevents religious people from reaching an objective truth, especially if we're conscious of critical opinions on these matters. 

 

[Scheavo]

Only to a Christian and a believer is the NT a biography of God.

Well, not really.  It is a biography of God whether anyone believes it or not, just like a biography of Abraham Lincoln is a biography of Abraham Lincoln whether I believe it or not.  But I can read it, and examine the evidence it presents, and the external historical evidence, and decide whether or not I believe it is true.  That's pretty much what faith is.  Most just don't recognize that they are exercising it every day.

Yeah, this.

Scheavo, I think we're getting somewhere. We were talking past each other a bit. My point is that my arguments in defense of Christianity don't assume anything. I can make a good case for the miraculous claims in the NT based specifically on what we know about the events. In fact, that's why I find your arguments so objectionable. If the those claims can be validated, then I don't have to start with "assuming God exists..." As I said, I would never dream of arguing that because Jesus was a real person that by default he's the son of god.

Well, testimonial evidence from 2000 years ago isn't very convincing to me of the truth (nor is testimonial evidence too convincing for me if my neighbor tried to tell me something incredulous). For starters, modern psychology has shown memory to be a rather... fickle.. thing. It's rather easy to implant a memory, or change a memory, drastically by simply asking the question in the appropriate way. I don't know about you, but I have friends who change the account of an event every time they tell it, and by the end, they forget the original event to a very large degree. For another, there many now known natural phenomenon that used to be given supernatural sources; so that witnesses could have all witnessed the same thing, and then ascribed it to a supernatural deity because of scientific ignorance. The fact then that there are several accounts of the same event in no way proves that those events were caused supernaturally. Such events still occur today, and science has to step in to explain the events, and why they are natural events, and understandable according to natural laws. By collaborating evidence, you at best prove that an historical event happened in some fashion, but you do not prove that the event attested to was true. I mean, people today swear they see Jesus in fucking TOAST; and while it's ridiculous, and I don't think you have to try and explain those people (cause they're crazy), you do have to prove how the testimonial evidence you point to was not written by people who basically see Jesus in toast.

To get more specific, I think it's very possible that there was some sort of event that led to the stories behind the flood of Noah. Numerous cultures ascribe something akin to it, but stories have a way of getting exaggerated (telephone, anyone?). But there are many plausible natural way to explain how people around the globe could speak of a "flood," while there not actually have been a giant flood that took over the globe. Just like I think the mythology around fantasy creatures (dwarfs, ogres, trolls, elves, etc), likely has some ground in reality (we know we lived with neanderthals, large brutish, ogre like hominids), we've found a small diminished species (halfings, dwarfs, gnomes, etc), and we've found evidence for another species of hominids that lives the same time as us (I believe I remember hearing most Asians have DNA from this mystery hominid). Myths and legends have some ground in reality, but the actual event and truth is probably far different than what comes about in the myth.

Now, if you want to get Spinoza on me, and say that those natural laws are "God," I wouldn't really disagree with you on that count.

If God exists, why do we need to point to history to prove his existence? Where is God now? It seems to me that if proof of God's existence is possible (which I'm highly doubtful of), then we shouldn't need historical accounts to prove his existence, becuase we should be able to prove it now.

I was thinking about bringing up this point earlier, but it seems to fit in with this post rather well:

Compare your arguments, and the logic being presented, to that of science. You argue that by looking at historical evidence, comparing them, and pointing to area's of agreement, people can come to consensus about what is true, what happened, etc, yes? But we don't see that as happening, Christians don't agree with each other very much, and non-Christians don't agree with, well, Christians. Compare that to the scientific method, where the same logic, and the same principles, lead to consensus, and has had amazing power at changing our lives, and proving the existence of things no readily seen (radiation, for example).

@Bosk: do you really want to compare the evidence for Abraham Lincoln existing to the evidence for God's existence?

*edit*

Thought of a interesting point to make. Another reason I would distinguish the ethics portrayed in the bible, from it's history, and from it's theology, is because in terms of actual morality and ethics, I'm, as far as I can tell, pretty damn "Christian." I'm that despite the fact that I was never once in my life ever subjected to the Bible; I have never attended a Christian ceremony, my parents never once talked to me about it, and basically grew up in a completely agnostic household. And when I say that, I by no means think that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, and find the whole concept of God, and knowing if it exists, preposterous to actually know - or defined in such a way as to render theology moot.

[bosk1]

@Bosk: do you really want to compare the evidence for Abraham Lincoln existing to the evidence for God's existence?

Well, granted the evidence of Abraham Lincoln existing isn't quite as strong, comparatively, but there's still more than ample evidence to credibly believe he existed too.

[Scheavo]

What evidence is stronger for God's existence than Abraham Lincolns?

*edit*

By the way, I say that being honestly not sure if you're joking or not, and I don't mean to be rude.

[Perpetual Change]

What evidence is stronger for God's existence than Abraham Lincolns?

Hey- get in the back of the line. I'm still waiting on Biblical Infallibility and Timothy*.

*As well as various answers/responses to various PMs and other conversations, both recently and some longer ago, like, "what do you consider to be a suite, then?" Even though that I so long ago I might as well just let it go now (insert winky-smilie-guy here)

[hefdaddy42]

Wait, what are we discussing?  Are we discussing apologetics for the truth of Christianity?  Or are we discussing whether the text of the Bible is infallible?  Or are we discussing whether history can be separated from theology within the text?  Because those are three separate subjects which don't necessarily have anything to do with one another, and I think that some of them are getting confused within the conversation.

[Perpetual Change]

We're discussing why young people leave church, and, if I follow correctly, some people are pointing out the churches inability to grapple with those issues that Christians themselves disagree on as one reason why the faith is getting weaker.

[hefdaddy42]

We're discussing why young people leave church, and, if I follow correctly, some people are pointing out the churches inability to grapple with those issues that Christians themselves disagree on as one reason why the faith is getting weaker.

Yes, but I meant specifically.

[bosk1]

Hef, in terms of having a philosophical and/or theological discussion, I complete get where you are coming from, and I agree with the distinction you are making.  But when it comes to practical application of those separate areas, they of course will blur together.

[Scheavo]

Wait, what are we discussing?  Are we discussing apologetics for the truth of Christianity?  Or are we discussing whether the text of the Bible is infallible?  Or are we discussing whether history can be separated from theology within the text?  Because those are three separate subjects which don't necessarily have anything to do with one another, and I think that some of them are getting confused within the conversation.

I think all of the above, plus a few others. I agree they can be treated differently, but they all run together when the discussion surround ways to interpret the Bible, why to interpret them that way, etc.

[Aramatheis]

^ nice post time-stamp


I haven't "left" the church in an absolute, "I'm done with this" way, but I am in no way a good Catholic. I rarely pray, I don't attend mass, I don't read the Bible and I don't truly believe.

I guess in my case it stems from the fact that my parents never forced religion on us (my siblings and I) as children. Sure, we attended catholic school and attended the important masses, and took part in rites and ceremonies, but we never did outside of school.
Because of this, religion was always something I just never thought about. I mean, it seems silly, from a logical point of view, that an all powerful god who lives in the heavens created everything and knows everything about me and my life (especially with the theory of evolution).

religion just doesn't have any place in my life. I don't practice my faith, I don't study my religion. I don't know what else I can say about it, or how to justify it any differently.
It's just not something I'm interest in, or particularly think has any great impact on my life.

[rumborak]

Because of this, religion was always something I just never thought about. I mean, it seems silly, from a logical point of view, that an all powerful god who lives in the heavens created everything and knows everything about me and my life (especially with the theory of evolution).

For me it was also that an omniscient and omnipotent being would be so vain to require worship, and resort to blackmail to enforce it.
Soon after I also realized that the vanity lied (as usual) with the humans, who considered themselves so special in the universe that God *clearly* must love us, and thus we're the only thing in the universe worth being loved by.

rumborak

[MasterShakezula]

Because of this, religion was always something I just never thought about. I mean, it seems silly, from a logical point of view, that an all powerful god who lives in the heavens created everything and knows everything about me and my life (especially with the theory of evolution).

For me it was also that an omniscient and omnipotent being would be so vain to require worship, and resort to blackmail to enforce it.

rumborak

Same here.  I was never made to go into religion and have never believed in it.  However, I have no problem with others choosing to believe in it, what with freedom of faith.  Overall, I wouldn't say religion or non-religion is something I really think about.  It's not something I see thrown around much outside of people debating about it in the media. 

[Aramatheis]

yeah, I don't begrudge anyone their faith or beliefs, just because I don't want to participate

but not being a religious person really makes it hard to understand the.. fervor with which some people practice their faith (i.e. extremists, etc)

[yeshaberto]

I lost faith in the church at a very young age because of disconnect and the hypocrisy.
Years later when I discovered that God is bigger than the stick figure I had learned about, my life and fervor have been pointed up.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

^ nice post time-stamp


I haven't "left" the church in an absolute, "I'm done with this" way, but I am in no way a good Catholic. I rarely pray, I don't attend mass, I don't read the Bible and I don't truly believe.

I guess in my case it stems from the fact that my parents never forced religion on us (my siblings and I) as children. Sure, we attended catholic school and attended the important masses, and took part in rites and ceremonies, but we never did outside of school.
Because of this, religion was always something I just never thought about. I mean, it seems silly, from a logical point of view, that an all powerful god who lives in the heavens created everything and knows everything about me and my life (especially with the theory of evolution).

religion just doesn't have any place in my life. I don't practice my faith, I don't study my religion. I don't know what else I can say about it, or how to justify it any differently.
It's just not something I'm interest in, or particularly think has any great impact on my life.

I wonder if there is any data available on people who did not have religion "forced" on them as children and whether they became religious in later life.

[eric42434224]

As a child, I found going to church to be torture.  Each mass was practically the same thing....word for word.
It all seemed to just be wrote memorization of silly procedure.  As I grew older I realized that is exactly what it was.
After reading on the subject from the point of view of believers and non-believers, including those here at DTF, I can fully respect their personal views...and can even, in most cases, even understand why they feel as they do.
The one thing I just cant get my intellect and heart/mind to get past is the view many have of what god is.  I do not believe that we can have an understanding of what god truly is, at least at this point in time.  I also believe that there is tons of life in the universe....and cant believe we are his special pets.
Most importantly, I cant get past a god that requires the obedience and worship shown in many religions.  I dont require such things from my dog, why should the creator of everything require it from us developed apes?
The religious view of god always struck me as how man would act if given that power.
I have always said that I prefer my god to be more enlightened than myself.
I fully understand the need for us to understand, and the need to have answers to questions we cant answer.  I understand that some need the comfort religion gives......personally I dont.
JMO

[GuineaPig]

^ nice post time-stamp


I haven't "left" the church in an absolute, "I'm done with this" way, but I am in no way a good Catholic. I rarely pray, I don't attend mass, I don't read the Bible and I don't truly believe.

I guess in my case it stems from the fact that my parents never forced religion on us (my siblings and I) as children. Sure, we attended catholic school and attended the important masses, and took part in rites and ceremonies, but we never did outside of school.
Because of this, religion was always something I just never thought about. I mean, it seems silly, from a logical point of view, that an all powerful god who lives in the heavens created everything and knows everything about me and my life (especially with the theory of evolution).

religion just doesn't have any place in my life. I don't practice my faith, I don't study my religion. I don't know what else I can say about it, or how to justify it any differently.
It's just not something I'm interest in, or particularly think has any great impact on my life.

I wonder if there is any data available on people who did not have religion "forced" on them as children and whether they became religious in later life.

My sisters and I never got religion forced upon us.  Atheists, all.

[Tick]

People leave churches because churches are head up by people. People who distort truth. People who don't know what truth is. People who promote there own agenda. People who serve the God of self.
Somewhere out there is the absolute truth but man is too flawed to be able to deliver that truth.
End of story.