The Christians Making Atheists

[Vouthon]

The Manicheans rolling in their graves being compared to Trump.

Haha, quite!

They were using it in terms of its popular meaning - a black and white worldview, in which some are defined as the external evil enemy (out-group) and others are defined as the inherently righteous (in-group).

 

[David T]

That's in context to mother nature actually and I need no woman

View attachment 21708

All you feminists take note! ...........................................................................................................

That's in context to mother nature and no man or woman No scientist or religious leader is her equal.

 

[Sunstone]

All this, in spite of the fact that nearly 50% of Britons are irreligious while our youth population is far more overtly secularized, even atheistic, than in the U.S. (where most young people are still theists of some kind). In Britain, the Anglicans haven't followed the U.S. model of the Religious Right. They have actually moved with the evolving social mores. And yet they have suffered the same, indeed an even more alarming, drop in numbers.

Some years ago, I read a rather persuasive essay with the thesis that the key reason America was almost alone among industrialized nations in terms of our high rate of religiosity was because we had no state sponsored religion -- hence, no reason to regard religion as a government imposition that must be opposed by rejecting the churches. e.g. When the churches, etc. are not involved in politics, they do not incur politically motivated ire.

I forget most of the details now, but I recall thinking the author made a good, albeit not airtight, case for his views. But as you might surmise, the article was published before the Religious Right came to prominence. Today, I think all evidence points to a huge and growing backlash against mixing politics and religion.

I live in two political bubbles. The majority of my friends lean left, one or two all the way to socialism. But some of my friends lean right, and a few are wealthy capitalists (I sort of dance between the bubbles). Now, only two of my friends have anything but contempt for the Religious Right -- and I include among those who do have contempt people who think John Bolton is a rational, level-headed man.

That's how great the backlash to the Religious Right is in my two bubbles.

By the way, it might interest you to know that I was at a dinner for 36 people three years ago in the which the question came up, "What percentage of your income would you give to end poverty in America?"

The context here is key. I was the only truly poor person in the room. Among the others, there were to my certain knowledge at least two multi-millionaires (and most likely more than two), and nearly everyone there lived in the same suburb of Denver -- a suburb that my sister-in-law had told me just the previous day had a median annual household income of a few dollars over $349,000.

The 36 people at the table were all -- even the women -- professionals, excepting only one young couple who had somehow managed to create a series of websites that earned them up to $76,000 a month. All solid upper-middle class Americans, except for me.

The after-dinner game we were playing was for one of us to ask a question, then for the rest of us to each answer the question in turn, going all around the table.

"What percentage of your income would you give to end poverty in America?"

"Half" or "Fifty percent" were the most common answers. The one caveat that almost everyone agreed to is that they would need to know for sure their money was being used effectively to end poverty.

One man, a person who earned his living trading in petroleum futures, said, "Everything. I'd give everything but what I needed for food, clothing, and shelter to end poverty."

The man who was furthest to the right politically, a guy who could quote Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to you for hours, said "Ten percent". He was the only person in the room that night who stated he'd give less than a third of his income to end poverty.

Even allowing for exaggeration ("That's the wine speaking, my dear!") those are some pretty thought-provoking sentiments coming from a group that knows the value of money. And I'm not sure of this, Sean, but I don't think that there was a Democrat in the room (Even I am not a Democrat, but listed on the voter rolls as an Independent).

Admittedly, this is all anecdotal, but I think many of the Religious Right's values just could be way out of wack with people on both the political left and the political right.

 

[Katzpur]

[Source: "The Christians Making Atheists"]

I agree with the author that a prominent segment of Christianity in America (i.e. the more radical, fundamentalist sort of Evangelicalism) is rapidly alienating people from the Christian religion. I disagree with his notion that the people so alienated are for the most part becoming atheists. I think instead they are by and large becoming unchurched, people who identify as "spiritual but not religious", and so forth.

Comments? Observations? Questions? Unhinged, mouth-frothing rants?

From my perspective, it's not so much that Christians are making atheists. It's more that Christians are making anti-theists.

 

[Sunstone]

There has been some study regarding why folks convert to and from various religions. I think it's worth taking a look at some of that research to provide some additional perspective.

From - Faith in Flux

This data is somewhat old at this point, and it has limitations in terms of how categories were broken down and the level of detail, but there are basically a top three that emerge from this:

1. People leave because they stop being involved or devout
2. People leave because they find their former religion unsatisfactory and find more satisfaction somewhere else, whether that's in practices or beliefs
3. People leave because of interpersonal dynamics and politics that happen in any human organization, religious or otherwise

Those categories are far too vague and ambiguous to tell me much at all, beyond -- perhaps -- the "just drifted away" group.

 

[sealchan]

[Source: "The Christians Making Atheists"]

I agree with the author that a prominent segment of Christianity in America (i.e. the more radical, fundamentalist sort of Evangelicalism) is rapidly alienating people from the Christian religion. I disagree with his notion that the people so alienated are for the most part becoming atheists. I think instead they are by and large becoming unchurched, people who identify as "spiritual but not religious", and so forth.

Comments? Observations? Questions? Unhinged, mouth-frothing rants?

Yes, pretty much...also agree "un-churched". One of Satan's great temptations is political power and many, many Christians have fallen hook, line and sinker for it.

 

[Vouthon]

Some years ago, I read a rather persuasive essay with the thesis that the key reason America was almost alone among industrialized nations in terms of our high rate of religiosity was because we had no state sponsored religion -- hence, no reason to regard religion as a government imposition that must be opposed by rejecting the churches. e.g. When the churches, etc. are not involved in politics, they do not incur politically motivated ire.

That's a fascinating and very informative personal tale Phil.

As someone from overseas, a Brit, it is obviously not possible for me to have anywhere near the same knowledge, on the ground, as you yourself posses with respect to Republicans and Democrats. Outside America, though, I can tell you that the GOP in general - not even the Religious Right, Tea Party or ardent Trumpers - is strongly disliked. I think I saw one Republican hopeul that I liked in the last line-up, Kasich, I think his name was? He didn't do very well with the base.

I am heartened to hear that centre-right or independent-minded voters with high incomes, in your circle, are willing to literally put their money where their mouth is. But, I'm curious, did they mean out of personal charitable means alone or did this also extend to higher taxes? (Wall Street seems to exult when the GOP 'reform the tax system,' for example).

Something I've found - and this too is wholly anecdotal, so I could be getting misled by a small sample size here - is that some people with conservative economic beliefs feel very strongly about the plight of the poor but believe that the best way of helping them is through private charity, aid organisations and third sector, which doesn't take money away from unwilling donors and increase the reach of the state in people's lives.

In other words, they tend to undervalue the structural causes of poverty and the fact that we don't just need to change hearts, but laws as well. St. Augustine’s proclamation, that “charity is no substitute for justice withheld,” inspired a certain young Baptist preacher to pursue his ministry with a particular eye on the public sphere. In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. King writes, “I would agree with Saint Augustine, that an unjust law is no law at all.”…

This is a huge theme for Pope Francis, trying to change this mindset, as he explained in 2014:

Pope urges activists to struggle against 'structural causes' of poverty

In his 2013 Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), Pope Francis wrote:

“Our faith in Christ, who became poor, and was always close to the poor and the outcast, is the basis of our concern for the integral development of society’s most neglected members …

“It means working to eliminate the structural causes of poverty and to promote the integral development of the poor, as well as small daily acts of solidarity in meeting the real needs which we encounter.”

"It presumes the creation of a new mindset which thinks in terms of community and the priority of the life of all over the appropriation of goods by a few … This means education, access to health care, and above all, employment.”​

Evangelii Gaudiumat nos. 186-204 directly critivizes the socio-economic system and philosophy of trickle-down economics, indicated as the “structural cause” of mass poverty. Here the thesis of the document notes the essential cause of poverty is inequality, “unfairness,” “hunger is the result of a poor distribution of goods and income” (191). We can no longer trust, we read, “in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market” (204).

And how do the exemplary views of your friends relate to the policy agenda of the GOP? It does not appear to reflect their own opinions. It's all about deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthiest, opposition to an increased minimum wage, restrictions on labour unions, lack of concern for environmental policy, little restrictions on firearms, curtailing foreign aid budget etc. It just looks really, really bad from where I'm sitting, and yet millions are voting for this. Why the stark, gaping void between the Republican platform and personal views? Are enough people not making their voices heard?

My social scene is somewhat similar to yours, I guess. I am a corporate lawyer, working for a famous 'blue-blood' firm in the City of London. But I come from a working-class background, so my friendship circle spans those on very low-incomes in some of the most deprived regions of the UK to millionaires and upper-middle-class earners as well.

Interestingly, I have found that most of my friends, including the highest earners, are Labour party supporters. Success hasn't, thankfully, led to a social darwinian attitude. They aren't right-wing, largely because the youth in my country (under 35's) despise the Tory Party for its pursuance of Brexit and cutting of social security over the last number of years. Thatcherism is alive and well in Britain, and we have no religious right. And I've encountered those types too, unfortunately, in my line of work. There's an awful lot of corruption that I see around me.

It ain't moderate, sensible conservatism, like that of Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan (two Conservative politicians over here in the UK whom I have great respect for. They are presently outside the cabinet, ex-pulsed, for disagreeing with current policies).

 

[Phantasman]

[Source: "The Christians Making Atheists"]

I agree with the author that a prominent segment of Christianity in America (i.e. the more radical, fundamentalist sort of Evangelicalism) is rapidly alienating people from the Christian religion. I disagree with his notion that the people so alienated are for the most part becoming atheists. I think instead they are by and large becoming unchurched, people who identify as "spiritual but not religious", and so forth.

Comments? Observations? Questions? Unhinged, mouth-frothing rants?

So many different ideas of the word "Christian".

But truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things. The rulers (archons) wanted to deceive man, since they saw that he had a kinship with those that are truly good. They took the name of those that are good and gave it to those that are not good, so that through the names they might deceive him and bind them to those that are not good. And afterward, what a favor they do for them! They make them be removed from those that are not good and place them among those that are good. These things they knew, for they wanted to take the free man and make him a slave to them forever.- Gospel of Philip

Paul addressed the creation of todays church orthodox ideology to the Galatians. (false gospel).

Truth is too important to follow ones who say they have it, over seeking it for yourself.

Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."- Gospel of Thomas

Jesus taught us to become Christ. Not to follow false Christs.

There is a distinguishing difference of meaning between Jesus and Christ. His given name was Jesus; his honorific title was "Christ." In his little human body called Jesus was born the vast Christ Consciousness, the omniscient Intelligence of God omnipresent in every part and particle of creation.

The Spirit made Jesus the first Christ, and we have that same ability. Sons (of God).

 

[Vouthon]

"What percentage of your income would you give to end poverty in America?"

"Half" or "Fifty percent" were the most common answers. The one caveat that almost everyone agreed to is that they would need to know for sure their money was being used effectively to end poverty.

You know, I was just thinking there, how similar this sounds to....

Luke 19:1-10

Jesus and Zacchaeus

19He entered Jericho and was passing through it. 2A man was there named Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax-collector and was rich. 3He was trying to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was short in stature. 4So he ran ahead and climbed a sycomore tree to see him, because he was going to pass that way. 5When Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, ‘Zacchaeus, hurry and come down; for I must stay at your house today.’ 6So he hurried down and was happy to welcome him. 7All who saw it began to grumble and said, ‘He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner.’ 8Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, ‘Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.’9Then Jesus said to him, ‘Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. 10For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.’​

 

[sealchan]

Yes, I agree. I was forgetting about those Christians other than radical Evangelicals who are creating an image of Christianity as a wholly toxic religion. If I believe in Satan, I'd suspect he'd taken over conservative Christianity in order to destroy Christianity itself.



That's interesting. Would you elaborate on that, please?

​

Besides being theologically sound, the Pope's exhortation is simple sanity. To obsess with one thing, and one thing alone, is certainly unbalanced.



Indeed. It's how those politicians get people to vote against their own best interests.

Sean, I can recall growing up at a time and place when the greatest compliment you could give someone to honor their moral values was to call them a "True Christian". There was literally no greater compliment than that. None. Even the town atheists used the term when they praised outstanding morals and values!

And it wasn't just in my hometown. Since moving to Colorado, I have now and then come across people in their seventies and eighties who've reminded me that being called a True Christian once meant you had exemplary values.

To be called that meant you treated everyone, regardless of class, circumstances, sex, race, etc with respect, decency, and kindness. It meant you were not a hypocrite, but backed your words with actions. It meant you were charitable, forgiving, caring, and generous. And it meant you emulated as near as humanly possible both the actual teachings of Jesus, and the ideal of Jesus as derived from his life and teachings.

This was all before the rise to power and prominence of such folks as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robinson, and James Dobson.

I once read a shocking quote of Dobson in a local newspaper (He lives here in Colorado Springs). The quote was taken from a speech he gave early on in his "ministry", and it went something like this: "We are going to show people that Christianity is not the soft, sentimental religion of old ladies and weak men that so many people see it as today, but instead is an angry religion with an iron fist."

Well, Dobson got his wish, didn't he? Today the term "True Christian" is only used sarcastically, if at all. At least, I myself have not heard it used otherwise by anyone in the past 20 or more years, nor have other people I've spoken with. Anyone much under my age, 60, has never in their lives heard it used other than sarcastically. And I would strongly suggest those facts are telling.

I think it speaks volumes about the real status of Christianity in this country. Christianity has lost it's status as the source of exemplary values in America. The "conservatives" just don't know it yet. They are blind to the damage they've done. Whether it will ever truly regain that status seems to me unlikely so long as "conservative" Christianity is predominant.

If future historians ever mark the day Christianity in America began its decline into irrelevance, they will surely note that day was when it lost its status as the exemplary moral code.

And it seems that this venom has now really taking the conservative party and its media to the limits. Judgmentalism has twisted into the cancer of incredulosity and ignorance as a banner of truth. Surely the work of Satan. All a natural progression from literalism.

Fortunately I think this is all going to come to a head and hopefully the better angels among us will truly outnumber the woefully misled.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

[Source: "The Christians Making Atheists"]

I agree with the author that a prominent segment of Christianity in America (i.e. the more radical, fundamentalist sort of Evangelicalism) is rapidly alienating people from the Christian religion. I disagree with his notion that the people so alienated are for the most part becoming atheists. I think instead they are by and large becoming unchurched, people who identify as "spiritual but not religious", and so forth.

Comments? Observations? Questions? Unhinged, mouth-frothing rants?

The hate filled, judgemental, yet ever so sanctimonious bigots within Christianity have been a far greater threat to my Christian faith than anyone or anything I've ever encountered from without Christianity.

 

[George-ananda]

Unhinged, mouth-frothing rants?

I agree with a lot of this.

I just have to froth a bit over the idea that the dislikeable behavior of other people would make someone an atheist. Seems like separate issues.

 

[oldbadger]

[Source: "The Christians Making Atheists"]

I agree with the author that a prominent segment of Christianity in America (i.e. the more radical, fundamentalist sort of Evangelicalism) is rapidly alienating people from the Christian religion. I disagree with his notion that the people so alienated are for the most part becoming atheists. I think instead they are by and large becoming unchurched, people who identify as "spiritual but not religious", and so forth.

Comments? Observations? Questions? Unhinged, mouth-frothing rants?

Absolutely...... To all of the OP.

It really does mangle moderate minds to see conservative Christian forum members voting in large numbers to support the public execution of proven gays, their suggestions for evidence being camera systems In public toilets etc.

The same folks giving strong support to ideas such as 'glassing' Mecca and other disgusting policies.

In contention they are quick to quote the bible where Jesus tells of bringing the sword, to sell possessions for funds to buy swords, and where Revs explains his return with sword of execution flicking from his mouth.

.......and all the time classing themselves as prolife. Atheists can sit back and leave these folks to destroy the remnants of Christianity.

 

[sun rise]

they are by and large becoming unchurched, people who identify as "spiritual but not religious", and so forth.

First, great thread.

One thing that I don't think has been noted is that structures and institutions have a lifespan. They are born, develop, mature and finally die. I think we're seeing the death of "that old time religion" in the sense that denominations etc have outlived their usefulness and are gradually passing away.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

[Source: "The Christians Making Atheists"]

I agree with the author that a prominent segment of Christianity in America (i.e. the more radical, fundamentalist sort of Evangelicalism) is rapidly alienating people from the Christian religion. I disagree with his notion that the people so alienated are for the most part becoming atheists. I think instead they are by and large becoming unchurched, people who identify as "spiritual but not religious", and so forth.

Comments? Observations? Questions? Unhinged, mouth-frothing rants?

I disagree. Christianity has in general shifted further to the left in the past 50-100 years. In the early to middle 20th century, the average American Christian believed the earth was 6000 years old, and would be strongly opposed to gay marriage, abortion, etc. In fact, gay marriage was barely even conceivable prior to the late 20th century. The average American Christian nowadays accepts evolution, or at least parts of it, accepts that gays should have a right to marry (even if they oppose it personally), etc. True, there are extreme fringes of Christianity, and perhaps the evangelicals have gotten a bit more radical, but overall, I would say that the evangelical/fundamentalist right-wingnut of today is the average American of 1940. So, as a whole, the church has become more tolerant. As to why atheism is on the rise, I can't be sure, but it's most likely caused by the increase in scientific education in schools, which is a good thing.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Back to the OP: I think "christians making atheists" is a bit of the cart-before-the horse issue.

In my experience, unless a person already had a predilection to losing their faith, observing extremists among other, similar faiths, would not affect someone that deeply, at best it would simply make them reject the institutions, but not the core faiths.

So, I would recast the whole thing as, "Christians helping people become atheists more quickly than otherwise". I suspect the actions of these fanatics simply drove people away, who likely would have left their faith behind anyway.

The extreme events can cause people to become introspective about their own beliefs, I think-- whereas without those, many are happy to just go day to day, without giving the core values much thought at all.

Humans do tend to follow the habits they learned as growing up. If never confronted, they just continue down that same path much like their families did before them.

 

[Sunstone]

But, I'm curious, did they mean out of personal charitable means or did this also extend to higher taxes? (Wall Street seems to exult when the GOP 'reform the tax system,' for example).

That's an excellent question! Unfortunately, I don't have a firm answer. But my impression at the time was that those who agreed to the caveat -- "So long as I knew for sure my money was being used to effectively end poverty" -- which was nearly everyone, were for the most part thinking of higher taxes. I say that because there was some grumbling about the inefficiency of government and that things would need to improve before they'd give up that much of their income to end poverty. Unfortunately, I can't be anymore specific than that about what people were thinking.

And how does this relate to the policy agenda of the GOP? It does not appear to reflect their own opinions. It's all about deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthiest, opposition to an increased minimum wage, restrictions on labour unions, lack of concern for environmental policy, little restrictions on firearms, curtailing foreign aid budget etc. It just looks really, really bad from where I'm sitting, and yet millions are voting for this. Why the stark, gaping void between the Republican platform and personal views? Are enough people not making their voices heard?

Another excellent question! Three things:

First, it seems to me there's a disconnect these days between some "elite" Republicans and their constituents -- especially on the state and local levels, but perhaps not so much in Washington.

For instance, one member of that group of upper-middle class Americans I was talking about told me this story: A certain Republican politician who I don't feel at liberty to name -- but who is quite prominent in Colorado politics -- complained to him once about how "thoughtless and impractical" his primary election voters were. He cited a woman who at a campaign rally had told him, "You've got to end abortion and get these people off food stamps and welfare."

The politician went on, "I wanted to ask her, "Just how are you going to get people off food stamps and welfare when all those babies arrive to single mothers who couldn't get an abortion?' But if I had said that to her, if I had tried to reason with her, my political career would be over. These people just no longer think. They are not practical at all these days, and it seems to be getting worse. So I say what I have to say to keep my job." Again, this ain't any old city councilman here. He's a mover and shaker in the Republican Party in this State.

Second, I believe I see the same disconnect in many of the members of that group I sometimes hobnob with. They aren't ideological Republicans (Except for the Fox guy). They're pragmatic.

I was with a small group of four or five of the friends a couple years ago when the subject of Trump came up (The Fox guy was absent). This was before the election, and all of them were voting for Hillary. They weren't even really considering Trump, just dismissing him as a reasonable, practical choice. Emphasis on "practical". These guys own and/or operate businesses. They were not anywhere near deluded about Trump being a competent businessman or likely to be competent president.

Last, a day or two after the election, I was talking with one of them. His voice was actually thick with depression. The last time I'd heard him sound that defeated was decades before when he nearly went bankrupt. But a month later, he's back and upbeat. He still detests and fears Trump, but he's found a silver lining. "Trump says he'll renegotiate one of our trade agreements with Canada, and that might leave me with an advantage over my Canadian competition!"

You see, these guys are fixated on the here-and-now practical to a flaw. They don't think primarily in terms of such things as the growing disparity between rich and poor, and what impact that might have on them. That's "down the road" at best. "Don't tell me what's twenty or even ten years out. Tell me what's going on today." They are, as a group, more politically sophisticated than the average American, in my estimate, but -- and I say this not to brag, but to illustrate -- I know three times as much as they do about politics. The bottom line seems to be this: They are simply too involved in their work to pay more attention to politics than they do.

 

[joe1776]

Those categories are far too vague and ambiguous to tell me much at all, beyond -- perhaps -- the "just drifted away" group.

Social scientists are well-aware that the data from self-reporting surveys can't be trusted. Sometimes people say what others will see as high-minded but often, they don't know the reasons for their actions.

A few years ago, within a two-week span, I encountered two Christians who, on hearing that I'd chucked Christianity from my life, had a look of childish fear on their faces when they put themselves in my shoes. They asked with trembling voices "Aren't you afraid? One man was 28, the other about 45.

I realized then that they had been hooked as children but the same message hadn't worked with me. I then realized that, on any important matter, faith is impossible for me. My attitude is "Well maybe that's true and maybe it isn't. I'll have to think about it."

For years before this experience, if I'd been asked why I left the traditional faith of my family, I would have given you a criticism of Catholicism. I just had no idea that my mind isn't capable of the kind of faith that religion requires.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Just ask around. People outside the Church will tell you: love is no longer our calling card. It is now condemnation, bigotry, judgment and hypocrisy.

Sounds like they've adopted the tactics of the liberal opposition, especially the dismissal out-of-hand of the charge of hypocrisy.

 

[Fool]

[Source: "The Christians Making Atheists"]

I agree with the author that a prominent segment of Christianity in America (i.e. the more radical, fundamentalist sort of Evangelicalism) is rapidly alienating people from the Christian religion. I disagree with his notion that the people so alienated are for the most part becoming atheists. I think instead they are by and large becoming unchurched, people who identify as "spiritual but not religious", and so forth.

Comments? Observations? Questions? Unhinged, mouth-frothing rants?

i agree too. its no longer a place of compassion and trying to understand one another. it's become a my way or the high way. everything that arises, comes to it's purpose and then disappears unless someone distorts it for personal gain and enslaves others. you can't profit from what you can't control. its either empower, or overpower.


11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

Jeremiah 5:27
As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich.

Revelation 18:2
And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.