Losing My Religion

[Irish YJ]

Not personally losing my religion (I believe what I believe, went through Catholic school all my life, and argued the entire time). At least not more than I already have...

Found the below article interesting. Not profound, but not many MSM articles on the topic the last year. I wish Pew did more work around the details....

With all the bad press, I've heard from friends and family (many that are truly devout Catholics) that are falling away. I've never thought of the Pope as infallible, the Church as an absolute when it comes to spirituality, the Bible as anything but a group of writings picked by a mix of folks trying to get it right (if you know how the writings came together), or that Catholicism was THE correct version of Christ's teaching.

Young Christians are leaving the church – Here’s why | Fox News

Why America's 'nones' don't identify with a religion | Pew Research Center

Why some Americans left religion behind | Pew Research Center

A new, 2018 Pew Research Center Report polled a growing group in America: “religious nones.” This group describes themselves as “nothing in particular” when asked if they identify with a specific religious group. The vast majority are ex-Christians, and most are under the age of 35. Pew asked a representative sample of these “religious nones” why they now reject any religious affiliation and provided respondents with six possible responses.

According to the Pew report, most “religious nones” left because they “question a lot of religious teaching” (51 percent agreed with this statement), or because they “don’t like the positions churches take on social/political issues” (46 percent agreed with this statement). To a lesser extent, “nones” agreed with the statements, “I don’t like religious organizations” (34 percent), “I don’t like religious leaders” (31 percent), or “Religion is irrelevant to me” (26 percent).

From this data, one might infer that Christians leave the faith because they no longer agree with the teaching of the Church or that they don’t like religious organizations or leaders.

But this is not why young Christians are leaving the church.

One glaring statistic was largely overlooked in the latest data collected by the Pew Research Center. When religious “nones” were asked to identify the most important reason for not affiliating with a religion, the largest response was that none of the six responses provided by Pew were actually very important. In this poll, Pew did not allow respondents to answer in their own words. So, even though respondents searched for an answer that approximated their experience, most didn’t believe that any of the reasons offered by Pew were very important to them when deciding to abandon their religious identity.

What, then, is the real reason young Christians (and other religious believers) leave the faith? The answer lies in a prior, 2016 Pew Research Center survey which allowed respondents to answer in their own words. In this study, most “nones” said they no longer identified with a religious group because they no longer believed it was true. When asked why they didn’t believe, many said their views about God had “evolved” and some reported having a “crisis of faith.” Their specific explanations included the following statements:

“Learning about evolution when I went away to college”
“Religion is the opiate of the people”
“Rational thought makes religion go out the window”
“Lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator”
“I just realized somewhere along the line that I didn’t really believe it”
“I’m doing a lot more learning, studying and kind of making decisions myself rather than listening to someone else.”

The data from this 2016 study may explain why ex-Christians “question a lot of religious teaching,” as reported in the 2018 study. The teaching they question seems to be about the existence of God, and this is consistent with the explanations offered by ex-Christians in a variety of other recent studies. When Christians walk away from the faith, more often than not, it’s due to some form of intellectual skepticism. Ex-Christians often describe religious beliefs as innately blind or unreasonable.

But that doesn’t accurately reflect the rich, evidential history of Christianity. The psalmist appealed to the design and fine-tuning of the universe to demonstrate the existence of God (Psalm 19:1). Jesus appealed to both eyewitness testimony (John 16:8) and the indirect evidence of his miracles (John 10:38) to argue for the authority of his statements. The disciples identified themselves as eyewitnesses and appealed to their observations of the Resurrection to make the case for the Deity of Jesus (Acts 4:33).

Ex-Christians often leave the Church because they don’t think anyone in the Church can answer their questions or make a case. It’s time for believers to accept their responsibility to explain what Christianity proposes and why these propositions are true, especially when interacting with young people who have legitimate questions. Rather than embracing a blind or unreasonable faith, Christians must develop an informed, forensic faith that can stand up in the marketplace of ideas.

We know why young Christians are leaving. Now it’s time to give them a reason to stay.

 

[Irish YJ]

https://www.reuters.tv/v/PNf1/2018/12/25/why-generation-z-is-less-religious-than-ever

 

[loomis41973]

Lost mine long ago.

 

[Irish YJ]

Lost mine long ago.

Growing up in Catholic hoods, and going to Catholic schools 1-12, I've seen my share of good and bad from the institution. I'll always be "Catholic" at heart, but I've seen far too much bad (firsthand and otherwise) from the institution to ever put my faith in it. I absolutely believe in God, just not a lot of the humans tasked with shepherding the flock.

 

[loomis41973]

Growing up in Catholic hoods, and going to Catholic schools 1-12, I've seen my share of good and bad from the institution. I'll always be "Catholic" at heart, but I've seen far too much bad (firsthand and otherwise) from the institution to ever put my faith in it. I absolutely believe in God, just not a lot of the humans tasked with shepherding the flock.

Pretty much sums up my feelings.

I met more than my share of two-faced, fake "Catholics" to last a lifetime. The gossip and envy is unreal.


As someone who went to church more than once a week for over half my life, I find todays church nothing more than a money grabbing bunch of BS.


If anyone in the ND area would love a great story about GCC hit me up on PM. What a sad ass joke that place is.

 

[Irish YJ]

Pretty much sums up my feelings.

I met more than my share of two-faced, fake "Catholics" to last a lifetime. The gossip and envy is unreal.


As someone who went to church more than once a week for over half my life, I find todays church nothing more than a money grabbing bunch of BS.


If anyone in the ND area would love a great story about GCC hit me up on PM. What a sad ass joke that place is.

I think most churches/religions are all about the money. It's pretty disgusting. Some hide it better. I've seen the archdiocese close down to many "poor" parishes where they were probably needed most, but just couldn't bring in the revenue.

Aside from all of the child sex crap, what has turned me off most about the Catholic Church was how political (internal politics, not gov politics) the parishes became in the 80s and later. And I saw too many very good priests pushed out and replaced by more politically tied in priests that were incredibly bad for the flock.

What is GCC? You talking about ND's Grad Consulting Careers?

 

[BrownerandFry]

Not personally losing my religion (I believe what I believe, went through Catholic school all my life, and argued the entire time). At least not more than I already have...

Found the below article interesting. Not profound, but not many MSM articles on the topic the last year. I wish Pew did more work around the details....

With all the bad press, I've heard from friends and family (many that are truly devout Catholics) that are falling away. I've never thought of the Pope as infallible, the Church as an absolute when it comes to spirituality, the Bible as anything but a group of writings picked by a mix of folks trying to get it right (if you know how the writings came together), or that Catholicism was THE correct version of Christ's teaching.

Young Christians are leaving the church – Here’s why | Fox News

Why America's 'nones' don't identify with a religion | Pew Research Center

Why some Americans left religion behind | Pew Research Center

Sorry, I just found your thread.

And I lived it.

Christ walked the earth 2000 years ago, give or take.

Me? I follow Christ, not the Catholic Church. I owe my Faith to Roman Catholics who somehow, back in that superstitious age had such DEPTH OF FAITH that it was edifying despite the infant of Prague, scapulars and all other nonsense up to but falling short of the voodoo thing with the dissection of chickens.

I am going to suggest you CONSIDER looking at two things


What Jesus Meant by Garry Wills.
It is intense, and dense, but clear, simple and short. It's the best single book on the meaning of christ I have ever read

and this one is, well, something that reads like a Russian Novel, because it comes from one.

It is by Fyodor Dostoevsky, from the Brothers Karamazov,
"the Grand Inquisitor" chapter
about 25 pages, but I caution you that you may put it down a dozen times before you finish it.

The precis is that Jesus comes back to earth in the Spanish Inquisition, in Seville no less, and while not saying a word, allows the local prelate to explain why the church pulls the shenanigans that the church does. It is a brilliant piece, but I remind you that it ain't an easy read.

Keep in mind what Chesterton said.

"It is not that christianity has been tried and failed, it is that Christianity has never been tried."

My one solution? (developed with family and friends, and some Christian paramours)

the Gospels are 89 chapters.
If christ's promise of the comforter means anything it is that the spirity guided the transmittal of Christ's teaching, somehow, through a strange time.

I ignore and dismiss EVERYTHING but those 89 chapters.

Christ is the Way, the Truth and the life.

That's all I need, that is the Rosetta Stone it unlocks the rest.

happy to dialogue on this, lemme know.

And don't ever fail this quiz.

Who did Christ come for?

He came for you!

Bless you, may the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

 

[Bishop2b5]

My story is a bit different from those of you who seem to have become disillusioned with organized religion or a particular church and sort of moved on. I grew up attending a mainstream Protestant church and attending 2-3 services per week. By the age of 8, though, I began to have serious questions that never went away. I didn't so much lose faith in religion or the church, as much as my doubt about the very existence of a god grew and I couldn't reconcile what the church taught with what science and observation convinced me of.

By my mid 20's I pretty much stopped participating in any religious activities, and at 27 finally accepted that there was no reconciling church teachings with science, and the reason was that one of them was simply wrong and not factual. I've been a 100%, no doubt whatsoever, atheist ever since. I can still appreciate the values and ethics of many religions, but I don't need the fear of hell or the anticipation of heaven to motivate me to be honest, have integrity, treat others well, and do the right thing.

 

[INLaw]

Easy to believe when JP2 was pontiff. This commie obama pope not so much

 

[IRISHDODGER]

My story is a bit different from those of you who seem to have become disillusioned with organized religion or a particular church and sort of moved on. I grew up attending a mainstream Protestant church and attending 2-3 services per week. By the age of 8, though, I began to have serious questions that never went away. I didn't so much lose faith in religion or the church, as much as my doubt about the very existence of a god grew and I couldn't reconcile what the church taught with what science and observation convinced me of.

By my mid 20's I pretty much stopped participating in any religious activities, and at 27 finally accepted that there was no reconciling church teachings with science, and the reason was that one of them was simply wrong and not factual. I've been a 100%, no doubt whatsoever, atheist ever since. I can still appreciate the values and ethics of many religions, but I don't need the fear of hell or the anticipation of heaven to motivate me to be honest, have integrity, treat others well, and do the right thing.

So what objective standard to you base goodness (i.e., be honest, have integrity, treat others well & do the right thing)?

 

[SeekNDestroy]

So what objective standard to you base goodness (i.e., be honest, have integrity, treat others well & do the right thing)?

What does right vs. wrong have to do with magic sky daddy? Morality is innate.

 

[Bishop2b5]

So what objective standard to you base goodness (i.e., be honest, have integrity, treat others well & do the right thing)?

Two things. First, the Golden Rule is more or less understood and (to some extent) forms the foundation of all codes of ethics and morality. It's something that any thinking being understands and at least recognizes. We all get the idea that if we don't want someone to take our stuff, we probably shouldn't take others' stuff. If we don't want to get abused, we probably shouldn't abuse others. Now, lots of people don't follow that idea, but on some level virtually every normal person at least understands it and recognizes it's a good idea.

Second, how do doctors know what to do for patients? How do engineers know how to build a jet plane or a skyscraper? Through the accumulation of knowledge gained from decades and centuries of trial & error and observation by countless others who came before them. Same with laws, ethics, morality, and etc. We learn from centuries of what worked and didn't work in countless societies and cultures in allowing us to live with others in various sized groups and situations.

Many religious people have a hard time grasping that an atheist can know right from wrong or have a moral compass without a religious "revelation" of morality or a fear of hell or desire for Heaven, but that's far from true. As a child, we behave because Santa is watching and we don't want to get a lump of coal. When you get old enough to stop believing in Santa, do you stop behaving? No, you just learn more rational reasons for behaving well.

I try to be a good person, help others, do the right thing, be honest, and treat people the way I'd like to be treated (tempered with a certain degree of how they deserve to be treated based on their actions) because I like living in a civilized society and being at peace with those around me. That makes my life easier and makes it easier for me to have a good life and raise my family, and for others to do the same. I recognize that following certain codes of right & wrong and following the Golden Rule makes all of that possible for me and everyone else. If your religion convinces you to do that, that's great. If you do it for more logical reasons, that's great too.

I've told this story before years ago, but it illustrates my point. When I was a kid, my mom routinely left me a long list of chores to do every day. I cleaned the bathrooms, washed dishes, took out the trash, vacuumed the entire house, dusted, did all the laundry, made my bed, did my homework, and so on (not to mention all the yard mowing, gutter cleaning, wood chopping, gardening, feed the cattle, haul hay, etc., etc., stuff my dad had me doing too). I couldn't WAIT to go off to college and get away from my crazy, slave driving mom and her goofy, unnecessary household chore nonsense. Happiest day of my life was the day she dropped me off at my first apartment in Tuscaloosa my freshman year and drove away. "I'll NEVER do any of that ridiculous housework crap again" I said to myself.

Yeah, not so much. About 5 or 6 weeks later I was tired of sorting through the pile of dirty clothes sniffing of things to see what stank the least so I could find something to wear. I was tired of there NEVER being a clean pot, pan, glass, plate, or utensil when I wanted to eat. My bathroom smelled like a horse barn. My once white sheets were gray and had food stains on them. There were about 15 bags of trash piled up in my kitchen. My floors were filthy and covered in grit and dust. It dawned on me that my mom's rules and the fear of getting in trouble with her weren't the only reasons to live like a civilized human instead of a bachelor chimp in a cave. I spent most of a day cleaning, changing sheets, doing laundry, taking out trash, and so on. I realized that there were objective reasons to live a certain way that had nothing to do with my parents' rules or avoiding any sort of punishment.

That's how I and most atheists view ethics and morality. I don't need a religion or a god to tell me not to rape and kill and steal, nor to tell me I should be honest, faithful to my wife, treat others as I want to be treated, and just be a good person. I can see countless valid reasons for all that without someone telling me those are the rules or holding the fear of eternal punishment over my head.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Two things. First, the Golden Rule is more or less understood and (to some extent) forms the foundation of all codes of ethics and morality. It's something that any thinking being understands and at least recognizes. We all get the idea that if we don't want someone to take our stuff, we probably shouldn't take others' stuff. If we don't want to get abused, we probably shouldn't abuse others. Now, lots of people don't follow that idea, but on some level virtually every normal person at least understands it and recognizes it's a good idea.

Second, how do doctors know what to do for patients? How do engineers know how to build a jet plane or a skyscraper? Through the accumulation of knowledge gained from decades and centuries of trial & error and observation by countless others who came before them. Same with laws, ethics, morality, and etc. We learn from centuries of what worked and didn't work in countless societies and cultures in allowing us to live with others in various sized groups and situations.

Many religious people have a hard time grasping that an atheist can know right from wrong or have a moral compass without a religious "revelation" of morality or a fear of hell or desire for Heaven, but that's far from true. As a child, we behave because Santa is watching and we don't want to get a lump of coal. When you get old enough to stop believing in Santa, do you stop behaving? No, you just learn more rational reasons for behaving well.

I try to be a good person, help others, do the right thing, be honest, and treat people the way I'd like to be treated (tempered with a certain degree of how they deserve to be treated based on their actions) because I like living in a civilized society and being at peace with those around me. That makes my life easier and makes it easier for me to have a good life and raise my family, and for others to do the same. I recognize that following certain codes of right & wrong and following the Golden Rule makes all of that possible for me and everyone else. If your religion convinces you to do that, that's great. If you do it for more logical reasons, that's great too.

I've told this story before years ago, but it illustrates my point. When I was a kid, my mom routinely left me a long list of chores to do every day. I cleaned the bathrooms, washed dishes, took out the trash, vacuumed the entire house, dusted, did all the laundry, made my bed, did my homework, and so on (not to mention all the yard mowing, gutter cleaning, wood chopping, gardening, feed the cattle, haul hay, etc., etc., stuff my dad had me doing too). I couldn't WAIT to go off to college and get away from my crazy, slave driving mom and her goofy, unnecessary household chore nonsense. Happiest day of my life was the day she dropped me off at my first apartment in Tuscaloosa my freshman year and drove away. "I'll NEVER do any of that ridiculous housework crap again" I said to myself.

Yeah, not so much. About 5 or 6 weeks later I was tired of sorting through the pile of dirty clothes sniffing of things to see what stank the least so I could find something to wear. I was tired of there NEVER being a clean pot, pan, glass, plate, or utensil when I wanted to eat. My bathroom smelled like a horse barn. My once white sheets were gray and had food stains on them. There were about 15 bags of trash piled up in my kitchen. My floors were filthy and covered in grit and dust. It dawned on me that my mom's rules and the fear of getting in trouble with her weren't the only reasons to live like a civilized human instead of a bachelor chimp in a cave. I spent most of a day cleaning, changing sheets, doing laundry, taking out trash, and so on. I realized that there were objective reasons to live a certain way that had nothing to do with my parents' rules or avoiding any sort of punishment.

That's how I and most atheists view ethics and morality. I don't need a religion or a god to tell me not to rape and kill and steal, nor to tell me I should be honest, faithful to my wife, treat others as I want to be treated, and just be a good person. I can see countless valid reasons for all that without someone telling me those are the rules or holding the fear of eternal punishment over my head.

Thanks for your reply. So where did the Golden Rule originate? And where do we get the idea that we “shouldn’t take stuff”. Genuinely curious.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Two things. First, the Golden Rule is more or less understood and (to some extent) forms the foundation of all codes of ethics and morality. It's something that any thinking being understands and at least recognizes. We all get the idea that if we don't want someone to take our stuff, we probably shouldn't take others' stuff. If we don't want to get abused, we probably shouldn't abuse others. Now, lots of people don't follow that idea, but on some level virtually every normal person at least understands it and recognizes it's a good idea.

Second, how do doctors know what to do for patients? How do engineers know how to build a jet plane or a skyscraper? Through the accumulation of knowledge gained from decades and centuries of trial & error and observation by countless others who came before them. Same with laws, ethics, morality, and etc. We learn from centuries of what worked and didn't work in countless societies and cultures in allowing us to live with others in various sized groups and situations.

Many religious people have a hard time grasping that an atheist can know right from wrong or have a moral compass without a religious "revelation" of morality or a fear of hell or desire for Heaven, but that's far from true. As a child, we behave because Santa is watching and we don't want to get a lump of coal. When you get old enough to stop believing in Santa, do you stop behaving? No, you just learn more rational reasons for behaving well.

I try to be a good person, help others, do the right thing, be honest, and treat people the way I'd like to be treated (tempered with a certain degree of how they deserve to be treated based on their actions) because I like living in a civilized society and being at peace with those around me. That makes my life easier and makes it easier for me to have a good life and raise my family, and for others to do the same. I recognize that following certain codes of right & wrong and following the Golden Rule makes all of that possible for me and everyone else. If your religion convinces you to do that, that's great. If you do it for more logical reasons, that's great too.

I've told this story before years ago, but it illustrates my point. When I was a kid, my mom routinely left me a long list of chores to do every day. I cleaned the bathrooms, washed dishes, took out the trash, vacuumed the entire house, dusted, did all the laundry, made my bed, did my homework, and so on (not to mention all the yard mowing, gutter cleaning, wood chopping, gardening, feed the cattle, haul hay, etc., etc., stuff my dad had me doing too). I couldn't WAIT to go off to college and get away from my crazy, slave driving mom and her goofy, unnecessary household chore nonsense. Happiest day of my life was the day she dropped me off at my first apartment in Tuscaloosa my freshman year and drove away. "I'll NEVER do any of that ridiculous housework crap again" I said to myself.

Yeah, not so much. About 5 or 6 weeks later I was tired of sorting through the pile of dirty clothes sniffing of things to see what stank the least so I could find something to wear. I was tired of there NEVER being a clean pot, pan, glass, plate, or utensil when I wanted to eat. My bathroom smelled like a horse barn. My once white sheets were gray and had food stains on them. There were about 15 bags of trash piled up in my kitchen. My floors were filthy and covered in grit and dust. It dawned on me that my mom's rules and the fear of getting in trouble with her weren't the only reasons to live like a civilized human instead of a bachelor chimp in a cave. I spent most of a day cleaning, changing sheets, doing laundry, taking out trash, and so on. I realized that there were objective reasons to live a certain way that had nothing to do with my parents' rules or avoiding any sort of punishment.

That's how I and most atheists view ethics and morality. I don't need a religion or a god to tell me not to rape and kill and steal, nor to tell me I should be honest, faithful to my wife, treat others as I want to be treated, and just be a good person. I can see countless valid reasons for all that without someone telling me those are the rules or holding the fear of eternal punishment over my head.

just to offer my perspective as it sounds opposite of yours. I grew up “going to church” b/c my folks thought that’s what I should be doing..even though my dad rarely went. I wasn’t taught the gospel. I truly thought if my good outweighs my bad, I get a ticket to Heaven. I also looked down on the hypocrites. Those Southern Baptists that judged me for my long hair or not wearing the right clothes or any other perception.

I love stand up comics. A lot of my favorites are atheists. They, not coincidentally; were raised in a strict Jewish or Catholic household & inject that upbringing in their routines so you can tell how turned off they were from God b/c of “organized religion”. If I was told how bad I was every day of my youth or threatened w/ eternity in Hell based on my actions, I would be an atheist too. Nobody responds well to that.

Then I actually learned about a lot of Jesus & His apostles. Jesus didn’t hang out w/ the Pharisees (the ”religious rules enforcers”). He hung out w/ the criminals, the prostitutes & the tax collectors and others who were disenfranchised or kicked out of the church. His apostles did much worse. Paul straight up murdered Christians in the name of God. Even in the Old Testament, King David & Solomon committed far greater sins than most folks we know.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

What does right vs. wrong have to do with magic sky daddy? Morality is innate.

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Bishop2b5]

Thanks for your reply. So where did the Golden Rule originate? And where do we get the idea that we “shouldn’t take stuff”. Genuinely curious.

I think mostly from simply observing what works in our social and family groups. l see a fundamental grasp of it in my very young granddaughters, who've begun to recognize that taking something from the other leads to retaliation and at some point they start to grasp that they don't like that and their sister probably didn't like it when they did it to her. I even see it in my dogs to a lesser degree. They understand that treating each other with a certain amount of respect and consideration leads to getting along better. We see altruism and kindness even amongst lions, hyaenas, chimps, cetaceans, elephants, and some birds. They learn from experience and culture that being fair, helping, and not mistreating each other leads to a more stable, peaceful social group. Even animals learn that taking stuff often leads to someone taking their stuff and fights, and they develop a certain understanding that one leads to the other and it's best not to do it. Heck, my two dogs know not to mess with each other's food bowl or steal treats from one another.

 

[Bishop2b5]

What does right vs. wrong have to do with magic sky daddy? Morality is innate.

How did you come to that conclusion?

I disagree with the idea that morality is innate. We may (and probably do) have SOME underlying instincts guiding behavior that could be part of a moral code, but for the most part, I think we have to learn ethics and morality from our upbringing, our culture, and from experience.

 

[forkbeard3777]

Interesting thread.

Church is largely what you make of it. It's a conglomerate of all types. Some are there for good reasons, some are there because they are forced, some are there to treat it as a Rotary Club, and some are there in search of something. However, at the end of the day, you should realize that we are all coming together as sinners and we are all tainted people. I'm an Episcopalian, and frankly, I struggle many, many times with the Episcopal church and its overall liberalism and political ideologies. I think some of the things it condones is wrong and incorrect. It can be off putting at times, and often, it makes me look at Catholicism from afar and wonder if that's the right place for me.

That said, I do recognize it for what it is (as said above, we're all coming together as sinners and tainted people). However, I truthfully find great insight and wisdom from N.T. Wright and Tim Keller (Presbyterian). Generally speaking, I get more out of listening to their sermons or reading their literature than attending church.

 

[sixstar]

Interesting thread.

Church is largely what you make of it. It's a conglomerate of all types. Some are there for good reasons, some are there because they are forced, some are there to treat it as a Rotary Club, and some are there in search of something. However, at the end of the day, you should realize that we are all coming together as sinners and we are all tainted people. I'm an Episcopalian, and frankly, I struggle many, many times with the Episcopal church and its overall liberalism and political ideologies. I think some of the things it condones is wrong and incorrect. It can be off putting at times, and often, it makes me look at Catholicism from afar and wonder if that's the right place for me.

That said, I do recognize it for what it is (as said above, we're all coming together as sinners and tainted people). However, I truthfully find great insight and wisdom from N.T. Wright and Tim Keller (Presbyterian). Generally speaking, I get more out of listening to their sermons or reading their literature than attending church.

It sounds to me like you might find a better fit in a "low church" denomination like southern baptist, lutheran, or methodist. Low church denominations view the church more of a fellowship of believers than an institution, so you don't have such a rigid structure. With these denominations, you see the common theme that the bible has more authority than the church, which is nearly opposite of non-protestant denominations like catholicism (which views the church as having authority over the bible since the church organized the bible and the concept of apostolic succession) or orthodox.

You might find a troublesome gap between episcopalian and catholic beliefs. catholocism asserts that the church has the authority to forgive sins and that salvation is not through faith alone but also through cooperation with grace and church participation through the 7 sacraments.

Happy to answer any questions or dig deeper with you via PM.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

I disagree with the idea that morality is innate. We may (and probably do) have SOME underlying instincts guiding behavior that could be part of a moral code, but for the most part, I think we have to learn ethics and morality from our upbringing, our culture, and from experience.

Most research indicates it’s innate.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

How did you come to that conclusion?

Most research indicates that it’s innate. Many philosophers and also people like Darwin believed it to be innate as well.

 

[ulukinatme]

I grew up Catholic. Other than the occasional meet up with family during holiday masses I pretty much stopped going to church once I moved out. It wasn't really anything to do with a loss in faith, I'm just not a morning person and for awhile I worked 2nd shift doing tech support on the weekends. Only recently have I started going back to church regularly now that I'm past 40. I haven't been going to a Catholic church for two reasons: one, my wife grew up Baptist and wanted a compromise in-between, and two the nearest Catholic church is a fair drive away. So I've started taking the kids to a church that originally formed as Presbyterian but now identifies as non-denominational.

Exactly 5 days after I started going to this new church I ended up getting laid off from my job of 10 years...that'll make you question your choice in churches pretty quick. Maybe it was God giving me the push I needed, but I ended up finding another job with the same company in a different business unit. I'm making $8k more and there's much better job security. I also got a nice $9k severance package. I wouldn't have sought this position out on my own had I not been laid off.

Why did I decide to return to church after being relatively absent over 18 years? I think a lot of kids grow up resenting being forced to go. When you're young there's better ways you can see yourself spending an hour on Sunday morning. As you get older I think you remember those moments spent with your family and how they strengthened you. You remember church events meeting friends. Then I think back to brunches with the family after mass and the memories that created (We still rib dad about the time he got lost trying to find Chi Chi's). Aside from the moral direction and spiritual sustenance it provides I feel like we're coming closer together as a family as I return to church and take my own family with me.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I saw something recently that really drove home a point. Imagine you got rid of every single copy of the Bible and erased all memory of any Bible stories from everyone's mind. Humanity gets to keep all the rest of what it knows: all its knowledge of medicine, history, science, technology, culture, and etc. Would scientists, archaeologists, historians, scholars, and etc. rediscover the Garden of Eden and that humans, the world, and life in its present form were created about 6000 years ago? Would anyone rediscover the story of Noah's flood, that the hundreds of languages around the world all stem from a single event involving the Tower of Babel, that the Red Sea parted and destroyed an Egyptian army, or that a Jewish religious man performed miracles and rose from the dead? It's extremely unlikely because, other than being mentioned in the Bible, there's not a speck of credible evidence to even suggest any of those things ever happened, and an absolute mountain of evidence that says they didn't and couldn't.

OTOH, take away any books that mention evolution, quantum physics, relativity, the age of the Earth as being about 4.8 billion years old, life being about 3.8 billion years old, etc., etc., and ask if those things would be rediscovered by mankind in the foreseeable future. The answer is almost certainly yes. In fact it's hard to imagine that any of those things wouldn't be rediscovered because there's an abundance of evidence for each of them.

This is exactly why I turned away from religion decades ago. I finally realized that you couldn't reconcile myths and reality. That one was supported by more hard, unambiguous, irrefutable evidence than you could look at in 20 lifetimes, and the other came down to a bunch of unrealistic, impossible claims that lacked even a shred of evidence to support them. "My book says" doesn't trump facts, reason, and evidence.

 

[Blazers46]

I s It's extremely unlikely because, other than being mentioned in the Bible, there's not a speck of credible evidence to even suggest any of those things ever happened, and an absolute mountain of evidence that says they didn't and couldn't.

This is 100% false. Archeology and even other documents prove the Bible is very reliable history.

 

[Bishop2b5]

This is 100% false. Archeology and even other documents prove the Bible is very reliable history.

Depends on what history you're referring to. If you mean do archaeology and records confirm certain historical things regarding this civilization or that king or who lived in some region at this or that time, then sure. If you mean the story of Genesis and creation of life, Noah's flood, the diversification of languages from the Tower of Babel, though? Not a single shred of any credible evidence exists to support those stories at all. Not any. And there's a TON of credible evidence that says they're simply mythical, never happened, and absolutely could not happen.

I'll stand by my assertion. If all the stories of those things were erased, they would never be rediscovered. There isn't a single shred of credible evidence to even suggest that the world, humans, and all life were created 6000 years ago, but there is a mountain of evidence showing it wasn't. Same for Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel, the parting of the Red Sea, and etc. "My religious book says so" isn't evidence - it's just a claim backed up by a complete lack of any tangible evidence. Every religion in the world is full of such fanciful stories and claims, none of which are backed up by the evidence. What makes the followers of any of them think that theirs is the one whose unsubstantiiated, magical stories are true?

We can show exactly when & where & how and all the aftereffects of the Permian extinction 250 MYA, the KT meteorite strike 66 MYA, how modern people spread out from Africa nearly 100 KYA, countless tsunami hits and earthquakes and volcano eruptions all over the world during the past several million years, all supported by an overwhelming body of evidence, but you can't find a single speck for a flood that would've been one of the three biggest natural disasters ever that supposedly happened less than 5000 years ago? And can't explain how such a flood managed to not do any damage to countless sites and civilizations around the world much older than 5000 years that show no signs of being disturbed or flooded?

I get where you and others are coming from and why you claim Biblical infallibility. that the stories are literally true, that it's all real and divinely inspired. I really do. I was there myself for most of the first 25+ years of my life. However, once you stop saying to yourself, "My beliefs are infallible, 100% true, can't be wrong, and all the evidence has to be twisted and forced to fit that or ignored, and instead look at the evidence and ask what actually is real and what isn't, you realize the Bible and every other religious text or belief system is far from infallible or divinely inspired. They're all just a collection of cultural stories passed down and embellished over the years, and frequently completely at odds with demonstrable, provable, irrefutable facts.

However, I'm open to being convinced you're right and will gladly look at any credible evidence you can present. If you are and you think the Bible is very reliable history, what evidence do you think there is that Genesis and the story of the Garden of Eden and all life being created in its present form about 6000 years ago? What evidence do you have that indicates all languages split at one time in one place from those working on the Tower of Babel? What evidence do you have that there was a worldwide flood nearly 5000 years ago that wiped out all life except that on a single large boat, and that all human and animal life repopulated the world from the survivors on that boat?

 

[Blazers46]

Depends on what history you're referring to. If you mean do archaeology and records confirm certain historical things regarding this civilization or that king or who lived in some region at this or that time, then sure. If you mean the story of Genesis and creation of life, Noah's flood, the diversification of languages from the Tower of Babel, though? Not a single shred of any credible evidence exists to support those stories at all. Not any. And there's a TON of credible evidence that says they're simply mythical, never happened, and absolutely could not happen.

I'll stand by my assertion. If all the stories of those things were erased, they would never be rediscovered. There isn't a single shred of credible evidence to even suggest that the world, humans, and all life were created 6000 years ago, but there is a mountain of evidence showing it wasn't. Same for Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel, the parting of the Red Sea, and etc. "My religious book says so" isn't evidence - it's just a claim backed up by a complete lack of any tangible evidence. Every religion in the world is full of such fanciful stories and claims, none of which are backed up by the evidence. What makes the followers of any of them think that theirs is the one whose unsubstantiiated, magical stories are true?

We can show exactly when & where & how and all the aftereffects of the Permian extinction 250 MYA, the KT meteorite strike 66 MYA, how modern people spread out from Africa nearly 100 KYA, countless tsunami hits and earthquakes and volcano eruptions all over the world during the past several million years, all supported by an overwhelming body of evidence, but you can't find a single speck for a flood that would've been one of the three biggest natural disasters ever that supposedly happened less than 5000 years ago? And can't explain how such a flood managed to not do any damage to countless sites and civilizations around the world much older than 5000 years that show no signs of being disturbed or flooded?

I get where you and others are coming from and why you claim Biblical infallibility. that the stories are literally true, that it's all real and divinely inspired. I really do. I was there myself for most of the first 25+ years of my life. However, once you stop saying to yourself, "My beliefs are infallible, 100% true, can't be wrong, and all the evidence has to be twisted and forced to fit that or ignored, and instead look at the evidence and ask what actually is real and what isn't, you realize the Bible and every other religious text or belief system is far from infallible or divinely inspired. They're all just a collection of cultural stories passed down and embellished over the years, and frequently completely at odds with demonstrable, provable, irrefutable facts.

However, I'm open to being convinced you're right and will gladly look at any credible evidence you can present. If you are and you think the Bible is very reliable history, what evidence do you think there is that Genesis and the story of the Garden of Eden and all life being created in its present form about 6000 years ago? What evidence do you have that indicates all languages split at one time in one place from those working on the Tower of Babel? What evidence do you have that there was a worldwide flood nearly 5000 years ago that wiped out all life except that on a single large boat, and that all human and animal life repopulated the world from the survivors on that boat?

In the beginning what happened? Whether the Big Bang or creation story something can never come from nothing. You believe in the Big Bang, fine… where did that come from? If you believe chaos created order what created the chaos? There was a beginning….who created that beginning?

There is a mountain of evidence that supports the Bible as a true and accurate history book. There might be things you cannot necessary prove that we dug out of the ground but you can’t disprove and say it’s false just because it has not been dug up in the ground.

There are things you can’t necessarily “prove” like a garden that existed thousands of years ago, but can you disprove this garden existed?

 

[TheProspector]

I saw something recently that really drove home a point. Imagine you got rid of every single copy of the Bible and erased all memory of any Bible stories from everyone's mind. Humanity gets to keep all the rest of what it knows: all its knowledge of medicine, history, science, technology, culture, and etc. Would scientists, archaeologists, historians, scholars, and etc. rediscover the Garden of Eden and that humans, the world, and life in its present form were created about 6000 years ago? Would anyone rediscover the story of Noah's flood, that the hundreds of languages around the world all stem from a single event involving the Tower of Babel, that the Red Sea parted and destroyed an Egyptian army, or that a Jewish religious man performed miracles and rose from the dead? It's extremely unlikely because, other than being mentioned in the Bible, there's not a speck of credible evidence to even suggest any of those things ever happened, and an absolute mountain of evidence that says they didn't and couldn't.

OTOH, take away any books that mention evolution, quantum physics, relativity, the age of the Earth as being about 4.8 billion years old, life being about 3.8 billion years old, etc., etc., and ask if those things would be rediscovered by mankind in the foreseeable future. The answer is almost certainly yes. In fact it's hard to imagine that any of those things wouldn't be rediscovered because there's an abundance of evidence for each of them.

This is exactly why I turned away from religion decades ago. I finally realized that you couldn't reconcile myths and reality. That one was supported by more hard, unambiguous, irrefutable evidence than you could look at in 20 lifetimes, and the other came down to a bunch of unrealistic, impossible claims that lacked even a shred of evidence to support them. "My book says" doesn't trump facts, reason, and evidence.

I have seen the point you raise discussed by others (think I saw Ricky Gervais bring this up on Colbert's show) and it's certainly an interesting thought. I am no theologian and have challenged my own religious beliefs at times, but I think it would be a mistake to read religious texts purely as a form of understanding literal history. Religion, to me anyways, is less about understanding the cold, hard truths of our universe (like science does with physics, relativity, etc.) and more about understanding the truths of our spirit; how do we or should we live our lives and how do we find meaning in our lives? Whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or the sacred text is the Torah, Bible, Quran, etc., many of the stories are symbolic and metaphorical in nature and can be just as powerful as any scientific discovery.

 

[ulukinatme]

I had to read The Case For Christianity by C.S. Lewis during my freshman year of college. I highly suggest those struggling with their faith or belief to check it out. It solidified me and answered a lot of questions I was having at the time. It's a pretty short read, more like a short story, but it's compelling.

 

[Blazers46]

I had to read The Case For Christianity by C.S. Lewis during my freshman year of college. I highly suggest those struggling with their faith or belief to check it out. It solidified me and answered a lot of questions I was having at the time. It's a pretty short read, more like a short story, but it's compelling.

Lee Strobel also but he only talks about New Testament, I think.