Why are Christians leaving their churches?

[indenturedservant]

In the title, the question was posed, "Why are Christians leaving their churches," but in reading the body of your (well-written) list and examples, it seems theirs are faith issues, not necessarily the church issues.

If I may speak for only those for just myself and those with whom I am personally acquainted, some people leave church and still maintain and flourish in their faith.

I will sincerely say, that my faith increased exponentially when I left the church. I sought God, and quite frankly, church was a barrier to my faith.

Church taught me things about God, but could never truly guide me to Him, or even show examples of knowing Him.

They spoke of a "relationship", (isn't this what we tell the world it is?), but I could never find someone who knew Him better than they knew their pet doctrines and narratives for apologetic debates.

The last sermon I ever heard "showed" me, (not told me), what I needed to know.

It's a sermon topic I've heard for decades, but this one caught my attention.

The "pastor" spoke on finding the deeper things of God. He used the analogy of a swimming pool that has an ever-increasing depth. He was very animated, as many have been in the past...

In talking about, and inviting people to, the "deep end of the pool," I couldn't help but to notice... He wasn't speaking as if he'd ever been in the deep-end, he kept pointing across the room, like he was telling us to go ahead of him. I could see him standing at the edge of the pool, feet dry.

Churches focus on doctrinal narratives, denominational differences, and many have dogmatic positions that not everyone feels comfortable with. They train us to teach the world they are wrong, other denominations are wrong, those who don't believe what "we" believe are wrong, and it goes on.

Sometimes, some people, love God so much, they can't listen to error and opinion when they've learned to hear their Shepherd's voice.

[Disclaimer: I'm not ranting, or intending on offending anyone, but in 39 years in Christ, I've seen pastors as the number one turnoff for people seeking an audience with their King.

 

[biblestudent78]

It is indeed true that the Church is not influencing culture like it had once. If one studies past moves of God, the men God used and the message they preached, we find much difference to that of today.
There was no 'easy believism', 'sinner's prayer' or telling people they are saved just because they came down to the front etc.
Men of the past preached on sin, wrath of God, Hell, repentance and holiness. Not quite 'seeker friendly' stuff that comes from our modern pulpits today. Sin committing Christians could not hide their sinfulness behind such questionable ideas like, 'I'm righteous in Christ", "God doesn't see my sin, He sees Jesus". God sees us as we really are and we should tremble.
The Church needs to seek God afresh, repent, and get back to the Bible.
It is our only hope.

Our God is not a God of wrath. He is a God of mission. Do Not sign up if you refuse to be part of the purpose of Jesus sacrifice. If you want comfort, false forgiveness for the life you chose opposed to the call of Jesus, repent. But do not repent if you think your dogma or someone else's dogma it the true dogma. It is not. The purpose of the bible is to introduce you to the God of the Universe, the God of salvation, the God of repentance, the God of baptism, the God of obedience and the God of mission. Avoid those that they claim "theirs" is the God of the Bible. Their God's mission is to justifying their dogmas, creeds and catechisms. Pass the collection plate.

Instead, read Matthew 25. Read 1st Corinthians 13 and Galatians 5, fruits of the spirit to understand God's heart. Read Acts 2 to see the authentic Gospel of Jesus delivered by the Holy Spirit. You are guilty, so repent and be baptised and seek God's plan for your life following Jesus footsteps, following His commitment for healing, inspiring, reconciling, consoling and serving all in need of God's grace.

Leave behind the 4,500 kinds of dogmas of men. Find life in service to God through healing and serving your fellow man. The Gospel is so straight forward, if you say you love God you must also love your neighbor. That love is eternally linked. If you claim to love God but not your neighbor, you are being deceived, because the people telling you that also have entire categories of the "unsavable." Dogmas provide vast pedigrees of acceptable sinners and non-acceptable sinners. "He is not one of us." "She is a sinner." "God does not support their politics." God does not support their gender confusion. God does not support their sexuality. Salvation is cheap and only takes 60 seconds but you must pass through the dogma filters which we control that allow us to determine for God who God is allowed to save. Then you are free to do whatever you damned well want. Welcome to the reason "Christianity" is vanishing. Driven by dogmas of man, real Christianity is invisible, because of prosperity scams, corrupt Christian "Super Stars $$$$$$$" and "easy salvation" claims that guarantee you life of self-focus, greed and personal promotion is A-OK with Jesus because we deem you "saved" because our dogmas say so. Pass the collection plate.

 

[biblestudent78]

Seminaries have a tendency to teach a specific institutional program, and too many students unconsciously accept it as the only truth and thus get upset when someone thinks or believes differently. My pastor asked why I attended his church when he knows how radically different my beliefs are and I told him because I felt his heart was in the right place and the congregation welcomed me. I just wonder what he thinks about one adult Sunday School class asking me to teach, knowing that I will teach differently than is normal.

I appreciate your experience. Perhaps before anyone associates or joins a church they should carefully examine how big their is. The second question is how restrictive are the theological filters? The third criteria I think is important is answering this question, is it the intention for the church leadership to educate the church or do they also intend to be educated by the church? Do they focus only on your soul or do they see you as a complete, complex and worthy human being?

Ultimately, is christianity a process of learning theology or learning life. Is your church more interested in the purity of your theology or of your morals and motivations? IMHO a Christian community cannot survive on a diet of highly filtered and customized theological purity. It flourishes based on being the loving heart of God focused on evolving a loving community of service and sacrifice.

 

[biblestudent78]

In the title, the question was posed, "Why are Christians leaving their churches," but in reading the body of your (well-written) list and examples, it seems theirs are faith issues, not necessarily the church issues.

If I may speak for only those for just myself and those with whom I am personally acquainted, some people leave church and still maintain and flourish in their faith.

I will sincerely say, that my faith increased exponentially when I left the church. I sought God, and quite frankly, church was a barrier to my faith.

Church taught me things about God, but could never truly guide me to Him, or even show examples of knowing Him.

They spoke of a "relationship", (isn't this what we tell the world it is?), but I could never find someone who knew Him better than they knew their pet doctrines and narratives for apologetic debates.

The last sermon I ever heard "showed" me, (not told me), what I needed to know.

It's a sermon topic I've heard for decades, but this one caught my attention.

The "pastor" spoke on finding the deeper things of God. He used the analogy of a swimming pool that has an ever-increasing depth. He was very animated, as many have been in the past...

In talking about, and inviting people to, the "deep end of the pool," I couldn't help but to notice... He wasn't speaking as if he'd ever been in the deep-end, he kept pointing across the room, like he was telling us to go ahead of him. I could see him standing at the edge of the pool, feet dry.

Churches focus on doctrinal narratives, denominational differences, and many have dogmatic positions that not everyone feels comfortable with. They train us to teach the world they are wrong, other denominations are wrong, those who don't believe what "we" believe are wrong, and it goes on.

Sometimes, some people, love God so much, they can't listen to error and opinion when they've learned to hear their Shepherd's voice.

[Disclaimer: I'm not ranting, or intending on offending anyone, but in 39 years in Christ, I've seen pastors as the number one turnoff for people seeking an audience with their King.

I think your perspectives are well founded and more common than you may think. I really like the "deep end of the pool" analogy. The definition of what the pool is and what the deep end represents is near the center of the issue.

If the "deep end of the pool" is a description of greater and more complex understanding of theology, many would agree. On the other hand, if the deep end of the pool is a greater personal relationship with Jesus and a deeper commitment to live, love and serve like Jesus, then the deep end of the pool is where we all want to go.

 

[rewriter]

I appreciate your experience. Perhaps before anyone associates or joins a church they should carefully examine how big their is. The second question is how restrictive are the theological filters? The third criteria I think is important is answering this question, is it the intention for the church leadership to educate the church or do they also intend to be educated by the church? Do they focus only on your soul or do they see you as a complete, complex and worthy human being?

Ultimately, is christianity a process of learning theology or learning life. Is your church more interested in the purity of your theology or of your morals and motivations? IMHO a Christian community cannot survive on a diet of highly filtered and customized theological purity. It flourishes based on being the loving heart of God focused on evolving a loving community of service and sacrifice.

I can easily identify seminaries where I would be rejected out of hand, and other seminaries where I would be welcome with open arms and be the favorite student of all the faculty for the same reason. There are also seminaries where I know some faculty members would criticize me and argue that I do not belong while others would support me and say that I should be teaching there.

But unless you know the general attitu0de of a seminary, knowing where someone went is meaningless. Many, likely most, have a self-imposed filter through which they perceive the Bible, but I know of a few that actively push the notion that any doctrine is acceptable if one can support it with sound academics. I have been fortunate enough to have professors who take the stance that sound academic support is the key, not where one lands.

As for individual churches, I personally favor small churches, they are more likely to view the congregants as individuals. In my experience a good small church presents the gospel far better than the mega-churches which often become personality cults focused on a single minister, yes, the mega-church can have a group for whatever status an individual claims and effectively use these groups as small churches within the overall mega-church, but that does not offset the issues to my mind. One other key criterium that I employ is not available to most people, and that is spiritual discernment. Some churches, hopefully unknowingly, tolerate demons within their sancutuaries during services, even praising demons as bearers of the Holy Spirit.

 

[biblestudent78]

I can easily identify seminaries where I would be rejected out of hand, and other seminaries where I would be welcome with open arms and be the favorite student of all the faculty for the same reason. There are also seminaries where I know some faculty members would criticize me and argue that I do not belong while others would support me and say that I should be teaching there.

But unless you know the general attitu0de of a seminary, knowing where someone went is meaningless. Many, likely most, have a self-imposed filter through which they perceive the Bible, but I know of a few that actively push the notion that any doctrine is acceptable if one can support it with sound academics. I have been fortunate enough to have professors who take the stance that sound academic support is the key, not where one lands.

As for individual churches, I personally favor small churches, they are more likely to view the congregants as individuals. In my experience a good small church presents the gospel far better than the mega-churches which often become personality cults focused on a single minister, yes, the mega-church can have a group for whatever status an individual claims and effectively use these groups as small churches within the overall mega-church, but that does not offset the issues to my mind. One other key criterium that I employ is not available to most people, and that is spiritual discernment. Some churches, hopefully unknowingly, tolerate demons within their sancutuaries during services, even praising demons as bearers of the Holy Spirit.

All bible perspectives are filters or better stated, frameworks. These frameworks determine exactly what the bible is allowed to communicate. Our dogmas dictate our biblical frameworks thus uniquely permitting the bible to confirm our frameworks and presuppositions. Thus, we have thousands of divisions in Christianity driven by thousands of filters/frameworks that only allow the bible to communicate data that confirms our preexisting frameworks. Thus bible study is not to "discover" anything but to "confirm everything."

 

[rewriter]

All bible perspectives are filters or better stated, frameworks. These frameworks determine exactly what the bible is allowed to communicate. Our dogmas dictate our biblical frameworks thus uniquely permitting the bible to confirm our frameworks and presuppositions. Thus, we have thousands of divisions in Christianity driven by thousands of filters/frameworks that only allow the bible to communicate data that confirms our preexisting frameworks. Thus bible study is not to "discover" anything but to "confirm everything."

That is why I sound so strange, I studied to make certain that I was passing along the "proper" message, and discovered evidence that maybe, just maybe, the message was amended very early in order to "make nice" with Rome. I see actual HARD evidence that pre-70 CE that the Jews and Christians were close allies against Rome, and only "official" opponents later.

 

[biblestudent78]

That is why I sound so strange, I studied to make certain that I was passing along the "proper" message, and discovered evidence that maybe, just maybe, the message was amended very early in order to "make nice" with Rome. I see actual HARD evidence that pre-70 CE that the Jews and Christians were close allies against Rome, and only "official" opponents later.

Historically, the primary path to peace with Rome was pacivity. At inception, Christianity was a Jewish sect. All the 1st Christians were "converted" on the day of Pentecost, 50 days after the death of Jesus were Jews. The Jews had been in rebellion against their Greek conquerors from 167 BC until the last Hasmonean in 37 BC. Thus, the Jews of Jesus time were only 50+ years from their last rebellion. Now the Romans were their overlords. In time of Jesus, there were still zealots within the community and it is reasonable to assume that early Jewish converts had some zealots or zealot leanings. Remember that Jesus Galilean follower Peter wore a sword. However, the Jews and the Jewish followers of Jesus were on a collision course. Early on the Jerusalem Jewish leaders killed the Christian Jew Stephen approximately 33-36 AD. The high priest Ananus ordered the execution of Jesus's brother James around 62 AD. So Christians who were now both Jews and Gentiles faced persecution in Jerusalem and in 62 AD were persecuted by Nero Emperor of Rome. So, only for a short time did any alignment of Jews and Jewish Christians occur in Jerusalem. Keep in mind that the Jews converted at Pentecost had come to town from around the entire mideast. Remember the Ethiopian baptised by Philip after Pentecost? So the dispersed Jewish and Jewish Christians did not experience the same rupture that the Jewish Christians in and near Jerusalem experienced. Together they faced their first "official" persecution (mostly in Rome).

 

[rewriter]

Historically, the primary path to peace with Rome was pacivity. At inception, Christianity was a Jewish sect. All the 1st Christians were "converted" on the day of Pentecost, 50 days after the death of Jesus were Jews. The Jews had been in rebellion against their Greek conquerors from 167 BC until the last Hasmonean in 37 BC. Thus, the Jews of Jesus time were only 50+ years from their last rebellion. Now the Romans were their overlords. In time of Jesus, there were still zealots within the community and it is reasonable to assume that early Jewish converts had some zealots or zealot leanings. Remember that Jesus Galilean follower Peter wore a sword. However, the Jews and the Jewish followers of Jesus were on a collision course. Early on the Jerusalem Jewish leaders killed the Christian Jew Stephen approximately 33-36 AD. The high priest Ananus ordered the execution of Jesus's brother James around 62 AD. So Christians who were now both Jews and Gentiles faced persecution in Jerusalem and in 62 AD were persecuted by Nero Emperor of Rome. So, only for a short time did any alignment of Jews and Jewish Christians occur in Jerusalem. Keep in mind that the Jews converted at Pentecost had come to town from around the entire mideast. Remember the Ethiopian baptised by Philip after Pentecost? So the dispersed Jewish and Jewish Christians did not experience the same rupture that the Jewish Christians in and near Jerusalem experienced. Together they faced their first "official" persecution (mostly in Rome).

You combine some erroneous history, questionable history from Acts and traditional accounts of historical events to make your point. The Jews did rebel against their Seleucidan overlords between 167 and 160 BCE, and after a successful rebellion, the Jewish (Hasmonean) Empire flourished as an independent entity until 141 to 63 BCE when Pompey the Great was officially asked to intervene in a dynastic dispute, and the empire became a portion of the Roman Empire. In 54 BCE the Roman Empire attempted an invasion of the Parthian Empire and in 53 was chased out, allowing the Parthians to roam freely in the province of Syria and surrounding territories, including the Hasmonean Empire until 37 BCE. Herod was appointed King of the former Hasmonean Empire in 40 BCE but was only able to enter Jerusalem in 37, after the Parthians finally withdrew.

Now Acts was written post 70 CE and in that era a history was expected to deliver a message more than recount actual events, in fact invented events and speeches were expected. Thus, to place too much historical value on the accounts in Acts is foolish. The abundant parallels in Acts to classic Greek literature further emphasize this point, as does Josephus's version of the death of a Stephan, who according to Josephus was killed by Christians in the 33-36 CE time frame. Neither account fits with historic realities. It is also highly unlikely that Annus order James killed in 62, and much more likely that James was killed by Romans in either late 65 or early 66. Also, persecution of both Christians and Jews is hinted at beginning in the mid 50's CE, although this cannot be confirmed.

And this also ignores obscure hard evidence from 33-4 CE that Jews and the future Christians were closely aligned, in contrast to what Acts claims, but again, Acts being a Greco-Roman history, as well as being the second part of a two-part work, is of questionable historical accuracy. Now a fuller explanation of these last points would take far too many words to present in this forum.

 

[biblestudent78]

I think you are not listening (or reading) coherently. I did not and do not suggest that there is any better evidence of the animosity of of early Jews and early Christians than the murder of Stephen. The mission of Paul to persecute "the way." If Acts is not in your historial reading list what is? Exactly what are the "historical realities" you say are errant. Provide your counter historical details and sources to debunk Acts. IMHO, Acts is not Greco-Roman history. It is the account of a missionary to the gentile world. Acts accounts for the conversion and subsequent mission of Paul. We can trace the historicity of his places, trips, overarching agan theology of his time (Athenic temple) that has been verified by non-Christian historians. He was tried by historically verifiable people. Acts recounts interactions with historically verifiable people. What evidence do you provide that "messages" were not verifiable by historic accounts?

It has been my experience that those holding "Truth" can communicate it in a few words. My theologica hackles arise when anyone on any subject of the New Testament says, "their theories are so clear and concise that they cannot be describe in less than thousand of "words," which is just too much. Thus we must believe you counter to the historically valid New Testament. If you have evidence that Paul and the birth of Christianity within a Jewish context is false, please take a few minutes and figure out how to detail your objections in a coherent manner. Paul did.

 

[rewriter]

I think you are not listening (or reading) coherently. I did not and do not suggest that there is any better evidence of the animosity of of early Jews and early Christians than the murder of Stephen. The mission of Paul to persecute "the way." If Acts is not in your historial reading list what is? Exactly what are the "historical realities" you say are errant. Provide your counter historical details and sources to debunk Acts. IMHO, Acts is not Greco-Roman history. It is the account of a missionary to the gentile world. Acts accounts for the conversion and subsequent mission of Paul. We can trace the historicity of his places, trips, overarching agan theology of his time (Athenic temple) that has been verified by non-Christian historians. He was tried by historically verifiable people. Acts recounts interactions with historically verifiable people. What evidence do you provide that "messages" were not verifiable by historic accounts?

It has been my experience that those holding "Truth" can communicate it in a few words. My theologica hackles arise when anyone on any subject of the New Testament says, "their theories are so clear and concise that they cannot be describe in less than thousand of "words," which is just too much. Thus we must believe you counter to the historically valid New Testament. If you have evidence that Paul and the birth of Christianity within a Jewish context is false, please take a few minutes and figure out how to detail your objections in a coherent manner. Paul did.

Are you aware of all the literary parallels in Acts? They include Virgil's Aenid, Plato's Republic, standard Greco-Roman comedy scenes, Homer's Iliad and Phrygian legends, among others. It also strongly suggests that the mysterious Theophilus is actually a well-known historic figure.

As for making it concise, how well do you know your 1st century history and culture? Should you know it well enough I can express my challenge very succinctly, but if you do not, and most people, including NT scholars, do not. Thus, why I need so many words is to explain to you what you do not know because you have been taught that it is not relevant. Likely even if I pointed you straight to the hard evidence of Christian/Jewish cooperation, without explanation, you would likely (virtually guaranteed) miss it.

I acknowledge that Paul persecuted the church for a time, but do you know why? The very plausible reason also explains why the early church would go to such extremes to deceive the Romans, but again, unless you know enough you would miss it even if I told you directly.

I can tell first graders, who are impressed with how much they have learned in their first year of school many things that they will not understand until they have learned a lot more. It is not false even though it might well sound false to their ears simply because they do not know enough. But with the necessary knowledge they can follow.

 

[rewriter]

I think you are not listening (or reading) coherently. I did not and do not suggest that there is any better evidence of the animosity of of early Jews and early Christians than the murder of Stephen. The mission of Paul to persecute "the way." If Acts is not in your historial reading list what is? Exactly what are the "historical realities" you say are errant. Provide your counter historical details and sources to debunk Acts. IMHO, Acts is not Greco-Roman history. It is the account of a missionary to the gentile world. Acts accounts for the conversion and subsequent mission of Paul. We can trace the historicity of his places, trips, overarching agan theology of his time (Athenic temple) that has been verified by non-Christian historians. He was tried by historically verifiable people. Acts recounts interactions with historically verifiable people. What evidence do you provide that "messages" were not verifiable by historic accounts?

It has been my experience that those holding "Truth" can communicate it in a few words. My theologica hackles arise when anyone on any subject of the New Testament says, "their theories are so clear and concise that they cannot be describe in less than thousand of "words," which is just too much. Thus we must believe you counter to the historically valid New Testament. If you have evidence that Paul and the birth of Christianity within a Jewish context is false, please take a few minutes and figure out how to detail your objections in a coherent manner. Paul did.

It occurs to me, you call yourself "biblestudent", do you use any commentaries or any Christian writings to help you understand the Bible? I wonder because I can easily find 500-page commentaries on single books of the Bible. There is an excellent 3-volume commentary on Psalms also. And many popular Christian books that are a couple hundred pages. Why would anyone want to see what all these writers have to say unless they believe they might learn something they do not already know. I have studied these and have noticed what gets ignored, and that is what astounds well-respected biblical scholars.

Now one can explain a lot about WW2 without making any reference to Pearl Harbor, but trying to do so could lead to a lot of questions if one knows that the USA had a battleship called the Arizona in 1940, but that it never appears in any WW2 naval battles.

 

[dkontner]

Yes, we must not forget the holy commentaries, they lead you to all truth.

 

[blueluna5]

Church attendance has been going down and many are leaving there churches, only about 20% of U.S. adults attend church weekly today. I remember when back in the day, everyone went to a church, but it seems no longer. Then you have this which is very interesting..
Christians Tell Why They Are No Longer Religious:

'#1 Southern Baptist​

Ever wondered why some folks who used to be really into Christianity are now saying “no thanks” to the whole faith thing? Well, we found a bunch of them on social media sharing their stories. From growing up with certain beliefs to discovering things that didn’t quite add up, these former Christians have some interesting reasons for losing their faith. Let’s dive into their tales and see what changed their minds.

“Short answer: grew up Southern Baptist. When I started getting to the age where I could think critically about things, I just started noticing some inconsistencies. Specifically, I was told that people who believed in other religions would go to hell because they followed the “wrong” religion. What?? When religion is based a lot on where you are born, I just could not truly believe that people would be sent to hell for being born in the “wrong” country.”

This user’s critical reflection on his Southern Baptist upbringing struck a chord, particularly when confronted with the notion that people of different religions could face damnation solely based on their place of birth. The recognition that entire populations could be condemned for circumstances beyond their control raised questions about the fairness and logic of such a religious perspective, ultimately leading to a reconsideration of the user’s faith journey.

#2 Mythology Class in College​

“Taking a mythology class in college and realizing all the different religions had similar origin stories of how earth and man were created and evolved, but the details differed based on the environment the people lived in and how far along they were technologically. Anything science couldn’t explain was the will of a higher power.

Not saying higher powers COULDN’T exist, just realized people are killing each other because theirs is the ‘right God’, but the people don’t realize that for all intents and purposes, they are all following the similar lessons/stories.”

In a broader context, the user’s revelation in their mythology class illuminated the commonality among diverse religions. As they explored various mythologies, they discerned parallels in the stories of Earth’s creation and human evolution. The realization that different cultures, despite varied details, shared fundamental narratives about higher powers and unexplained phenomena prompted a reconsideration of religious exclusivity.

#3 Being Told Not to Question Faith​

“Being told to not question my faith made me lose my faith. If I cannot question what I believe in to better understand it, then it wasn’t worth believing in it in the first place. Or they are hiding something they don’t want me to find out, which makes me even more skeptical of it.”

For this user, the very act of questioning was essential for a deeper understanding of his beliefs. When this exploration was stifled, it raised doubts about the authenticity and solidity of the faith. The suppression of questions created a perception that there might be hidden aspects or inconsistencies that authorities sought to conceal. This lack of transparency and the inability to engage in an open dialogue eroded the user’s confidence in the faith, as genuine belief, for them, required a foundation built on inquiry and understanding.

#4 Unfulfilled Prayers​

“I was in a hard time for me and I started praying, attending catholic activities and doing lots of other things like these. I wasn’t feeling better. Years after I gave up doing these things and started taking care of me by myself and now I’m happy. So the faith gradually went away. I’m not fully an atheist though, I may be an agnostic but I’m not sure.”

In this instance, the user’s experience revolves around a personal struggle where traditional religious practices did not provide the expected relief or improvement. The subsequent shift towards self-care and the positive outcome generated skepticism about the effectiveness of religious rituals. The realization that personal agency and self-care contributed more significantly to their well-being than religious practices prompted a reevaluation of faith......https://milliondollarsense.com/christianity-to-atheism

I'm finally middle aged and I will say I don't enjoy church anymore. Do you go to church for enjoyment? No, and I still attend church to be clear. I think church is very important and that we should be helping to spread God's word and to be his hands, etc. Also I like worshipping God and that's part of church. Plus I have kids and they need church.

Okay, these are the reasons I don't enjoy church anymore.

1. Church is political. I'm torn bc on one hand I think everyone should be a certain party if they're actually a Christian. On the other hand I don't want to hear about politics on the Sabbath.

2. Church is political. I added it again bc institutional church is very political. It's tradition similar to school or work. It has its own rhythm that occurs every week.

3. I love seeing my kids in church. However I do feel like it takes away from my attention and just overall peace I use to get from it. "I need to go to the bathroom." In the middle of worship or prayer. Or worse bugging or fighting with each other. The typical kid behavior that is tough in a rigid setting.

4. I grow tired of the same stories with the same interpretation. There are so many stories in the bible and we stick with the same ones... Probably bc they're safe or maybe people are more interested in it. We don't for example have verses including nephilim. God forbid or anything with conspiracy theories attached. We rarely include certain sins that are getting more and more accepted. Probably bc it will hurt someone's feelings and they will lose money... Just being honest. But it also makes it very *yawn* boring, which it is not typically.

5. In addition to using the same stories that often don't apply to our lives. I also don't agree with the interpretation a lot. "It rains on the just and unjust." For example with information about bad things happen to good people. But Jesus lived in a desert. Rain was good! Use job if you're looking to bring the people down. It's hard sometimes. I don't need a Joel preacher but it would be nice to build up the people as the world is already kicking us.

 

[biblestudent78]

It occurs to me, you call yourself "biblestudent", do you use any commentaries or any Christian writings to help you understand the Bible? I wonder because I can easily find 500-page commentaries on single books of the Bible. There is an excellent 3-volume commentary on Psalms also. And many popular Christian books that are a couple hundred pages. Why would anyone want to see what all these writers have to say unless they believe they might learn something they do not already know. I have studied these and have noticed what gets ignored, and that is what astounds well-respected biblical scholars.

Now one can explain a lot about WW2 without making any reference to Pearl Harbor, but trying to do so could lead to a lot of questions if one knows that the USA had a battleship called the Arizona in 1940, but that it never appears in any WW2 naval battles.

I do not accept your analogy. My bookshelves have many commentaries and other sources. However, on any one subject the readings are fairly concise. The fact that they may contain a total of hundreds of pages is like saying the meaning any word would take too long to explain because the dictionary has 500 pages. (BTW - if you call sinking of a ship by any WWII enemy a naval battle - then the Arizona is definitely a component of the naval battles of WWII)

 

[rewriter]

I do not accept your analogy. My bookshelves have many commentaries and other sources. However, on any one subject the readings are fairly concise. The fact that they may contain a total of hundreds of pages is like saying the meaning any word would take too long to explain because the dictionary has 500 pages. (BTW - if you call sinking of a ship by any WWII enemy a naval battle - then the Arizona is definitely a component of the naval battles of WWII)

When I suggest to true biblical scholars some of my conclusions they quite often dismiss them. When I present them in full context, with full background, a lot of pages, they suddenly change their minds and agree with me.

Now going through your bookshelves, how much can you learn there about the Asiatic Vespers and what appears to be a connection to Spartacus and Carrhae? Might you have relatively easy access to Dodd's, Bultmann's or Brown's commentaries on John? These three all contain a hint if you cannot find the connection between the Vespers, Spartacus and Carrhae, but the hint is not something that most people want to see and it often takes a lot of work to become clear. But with the effort, it makes a surprising amount of sense, and provides more hints to many other buried clues in the NT, such as women's hair in Corinthians and 2 Timothy 3:16 among many others.

Or you could look at the multiple explanations used to avoid the simple translation of 1 John 5:8 that follows Greek grammar, but says something that is much different and must be kept away from Roman eyes, "the three are one (thing)", not "in agreement". What does "one thing" mean, please give an adequate explanation in just a few words that others can easily follow and not immediately dismiss based on flawed assumptions. I find it essential to explain what the flawed knowledge is and what the facts are with evidence rather than use just four words that will be dismissed otherwise.

It takes a lot of knowledge to recognize these points, especially when one has been carefully taught not to see them. People "know" material reality is "solid". Modern physics knows that "solid" objects are in fact over 99% empty space, we just cannot detect that empty space without very careful study.

 

[biblestudent78]

When I suggest to true biblical scholars some of my conclusions they quite often dismiss them. When I present them in full context, with full background, a lot of pages, they suddenly change their minds and agree with me.

Now going through your bookshelves, how much can you learn there about the Asiatic Vespers and what appears to be a connection to Spartacus and Carrhae? Might you have relatively easy access to Dodd's, Bultmann's or Brown's commentaries on John? These three all contain a hint if you cannot find the connection between the Vespers, Spartacus and Carrhae, but the hint is not something that most people want to see and it often takes a lot of work to become clear. But with the effort, it makes a surprising amount of sense, and provides more hints to many other buried clues in the NT, such as women's hair in Corinthians and 2 Timothy 3:16 among many others.

Or you could look at the multiple explanations used to avoid the simple translation of 1 John 5:8 that follows Greek grammar, but says something that is much different and must be kept away from Roman eyes, "the three are one (thing)", not "in agreement". What does "one thing" mean, please give an adequate explanation in just a few words that others can easily follow and not immediately dismiss based on flawed assumptions. I find it essential to explain what the flawed knowledge is and what the facts are with evidence rather than use just four words that will be dismissed otherwise.

It takes a lot of knowledge to recognize these points, especially when one has been carefully taught not to see them. People "know" material reality is "solid". Modern physics knows that "solid" objects are in fact over 99% empty space, we just cannot detect that empty space without very careful study.

The single accomplishment of a scholar is to divide the "noise" from reality. Equating Russell Crowe's and his screenwriters with any deep dive into scripture is unwarranted. I love those commentaries on John. However, I never confuse "Commentaries" with final "reality." Christianity is infested with Commentaries. They are exactly what they claim, comments, thoughts, opinions of their place and time. Their insights I listen to. Their subsequent theological conclusion, I do not. After 2023 years we have accumulated a book of "scholarship" 50x the New Testament text, none of which is fully in agreement with any other "source."

Your are completely missing my point. My mistake. The modern trend in "Christianity" is for the convenient, the momentary, the soon forgotten "promise of heaven" for your soul who you have not concept of. While on "Earth" we get to frolic, play the easy egocentric and hedonistic life because our soul "got saved."

That idea is not one of anything "modern." It is just the age old desire to get something for nothing. Promise me heaven for what I think but give me all the earthly pleasure I can achieve before my death. Only evil people inherit eternal condemnation because they are not rich in this life. Only the "theolically pure" and the rich which demonstrates God's approval get to go to heaven. Welcome to 2026

 

[rewriter]

The single accomplishment of a scholar is to divide the "noise" from reality. Equating Russell Crowe's and his screenwriters with any deep dive into scripture is unwarranted. I love those commentaries on John. However, I never confuse "Commentaries" with final "reality." Christianity is infested with Commentaries. They are exactly what they claim, comments, thoughts, opinions of their place and time. Their insights I listen to. Their subsequent theological conclusion, I do not. After 2023 years we have accumulated a book of "scholarship" 50x the New Testament text, none of which is fully in agreement with any other "source."

Your are completely missing my point. My mistake. The modern trend in "Christianity" is for the convenient, the momentary, the soon forgotten "promise of heaven" for your soul who you have not concept of. While on "Earth" we get to frolic, play the easy egocentric and hedonistic life because our soul "got saved."

That idea is not one of anything "modern." It is just the age old desire to get something for nothing. Promise me heaven for what I think but give me all the earthly pleasure I can achieve before my death. Only evil people inherit eternal condemnation because they are not rich in this life. Only the "theolically pure" and the rich which demonstrates God's approval get to go to heaven. Welcome to 2026

Part of my 50+ year investigation was triggered by the multitude of explanations. A good bit of the praise I receive is because I greatly reduce the "maybe's" and "if's" applied to explain things. I maintain that post-70 CE the church decided that it had to make nice with Rome, and that it had some knowledge that it could only share with committed insiders, and it set to work adjusting the history to accomplish those two goals, with both Luke-Acts and rewriting Mark and John, perhaps Matthew as well but that is unclear. Pre-70 was largely the time of letters which had already been written with an eye towards not disclosing too much as by the mid-50's the church was already suspect, if not actively persecuted.

In fact, one of my earliest points is that it appears the Apostle Paul all but openly admitted to treason before mid-58. I find that Clement of Rome was aware of this when he claimed that Paul made it to the farthest west, aka Spain, where he was in exile until pardoned by either Galba or Otho, the only two emperors who might have done so. The Pastorals were then written after he was pardoned, with deliberate wording to deny his apparent connection to treason, a point easily missed, that I noticed by accident. There was a different word available when 2 Tim 3:!6 was used, but that term carried connotations linked to treason.

 

[biblestudent78]

Part of my 50+ year investigation was triggered by the multitude of explanations. A good bit of the praise I receive is because I greatly reduce the "maybe's" and "if's" applied to explain things. I maintain that post-70 CE the church decided that it had to make nice with Rome, and that it had some knowledge that it could only share with committed insiders, and it set to work adjusting the history to accomplish those two goals, with both Luke-Acts and rewriting Mark and John, perhaps Matthew as well but that is unclear. Pre-70 was largely the time of letters which had already been written with an eye towards not disclosing too much as by the mid-50's the church was already suspect, if not actively persecuted.

In fact, one of my earliest points is that it appears the Apostle Paul all but openly admitted to treason before mid-58. I find that Clement of Rome was aware of this when he claimed that Paul made it to the farthest west, aka Spain, where he was in exile until pardoned by either Galba or Otho, the only two emperors who might have done so. The Pastorals were then written after he was pardoned, with deliberate wording to deny his apparent connection to treason, a point easily missed, that I noticed by accident. There was a different word available when 2 Tim 3:!6 was used, but that term carried connotations linked to treason.

There were no Make Nice with Rome decisions by "the church" because there was no single, organized and observant christian church. The key centers of the early church were in Alexandria Egypt, Antioch Syria, Ephesus, Corinth. Rome till 64, then after rebuilding. These "Churches" started has gatherings in homes. What distinguished them was that they were composed of both men and women. Rich and poor. Free and slaves. In each area, Christianity was supported by letters that were copied and circulated. There was no issue about they just considered "the way."

Paul never admitted to "treason." You can read his defense before several lawyer of Roman courts. In 1 Clement, Paul's death was said to be caused by Christian feuds. Paul’s second imprisonment and subsequent martyrdom took place during the reign of Nero (AD 54–68), not under his successors Galba or Otho and thus Paul was not alive to write the Pastorals. Early church historians, such as Eusebius, record that Paul was beheaded in Rome, a form of execution reserved for Roman citizens, which Paul was. While not explicit, 2 Timothy 4:6-8 is generally accepted as written by Paul from prison, suggesting he anticipated his imminent execution. 1 Clement (c. 95 AD): Written roughly 30 years after the traditional date, this letter from the Church of Rome to Corinth refers to Paul having "suffered martyrdom under the prefects" Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD): Refers to Paul as "the martyred" in his letter to the Ephesians. Tertullian (late 2nd century): Explicitly states that Paul was beheaded in Rome, comparing his death to that of John the Baptist. Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170 AD): Noted that Peter and Paul were martyred in Italy at about the same time.

Historians often link Paul's execution to the aftermath of the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 AD. The Roman historian Tacitus recorded that Nero used Christians as scapegoats for the fire, initiating a brutal wave of executions. As a prominent leader of the movement already in Roman custody, Paul would have been a primary target during this purge. Tradition holds that Paul was beheaded rather than crucified. This aligns with Roman law, which granted citizens a "quick" execution by sword and exempted them from the "shameful" death of the cross.

Reality. There are no eyewitnesses to the events in Paul's life and death that via letters or later quotes validate anything about his death.

For the most part, I find that those who believe they MUST find a way for Paul to have written the Pastorals have invented a non-historical narrative to justify their need. They must find any plausible or "not impossible" undocumented and non-biblical means of finding comfort. Unfortunately, this methods of wanting something to be "true" so much that any "not impossible" theory is acceptable where scholarship is abandoned in service to dogma.

The Pastorals, according to modern scholarship, were not written by Paul. For at least the following reasons

Developed Church Structure: The Pastorals describe established offices like bishops, elders, and deacons with specific qualifications, reflecting a more organized institutional church structure than the charismatic, early communities seen in undisputed letters.

Vocabulary and Style: A vast number of words in the Pastoral Epistles are not used in Paul's authentic letters (hapax legomena). The style is also described as more formal and less passionate than Paul’s typical writings.

Theological Differences: The letters shift from Paul's typical focus on justification by faith to a focus on sound doctrine, good works, and piety. They also exhibit a different understanding of church leadership, particularly regarding the role of women compared to Romans 16. Women were central to Paul and his mission. He describes one as an apostle and warmly greets women in leadership positions in the early church. It was women who crossed oceans to bring Paul letters and take Paul's letters back to their home communities. Whereas in the Pastorals, suddenly woman are not even allowed to speak in the christian community.
House Church Leaders: Women like Lydia, Nympha, and Mary (mother of John Mark) hosted and led early Christian worship meetings in their homes, essential for church sustainability. Deaconesses and Teachers: Women served as deacons (such as Phoebe in Rom. 16:1) and teachers, helping instruct new believers and, in some cases, mentoring male leaders like Apollos.

Anachronistic Context: The letters deal with Gnosticism-like heresies and false teachings that are generally thought to have developed after Paul’s death (c. 64–67 AD), pointing toward a date in the late 1st or early 2nd century.

Historical Context Inconsistencies: The biographical details mentioned in the Pastorals (e.g., Timothy in Ephesus, Titus in Crete) are difficult to fit into the timeline of Paul’s travels provided in the Book of Acts and his other letters.

 

[TruthDefender]

Some leave a church because their consumer preferences are not met such as a coffee bar or day care. Some leave because it seems a waste of time from recreational alternatives. A few leave because of a thirst for truth is not met.

Christianity was always supposed to be relational (us with God and each other). When Christianity was run as an organizational system, it became less relatable. When doctrine is presented as final and complete (to prevent error) it becomes static and unquestionable. Church structure (particularly denominational) usually stifles individual growth and maturity. Those with a thirst for more usually begin to explore other denominations and finally to pursue individual inquiry by looking at web sites like the following;

Christian Pioneer

Christian Pioneer - Answers to questions about Christianity

christianpioneer.com

Some are totally void of Truth, but are more like a daycare or activity center….
Material based worship!