Why do people leave Christianity?

[halbhh]

For me it's the texts themselves not lining up with the Tanakh; Jesus not fulfilling the Messianic prophecies; internal inconsistencies etc. It is nothing like Judaism.

Ok.

No doubt you could interpret a number of ways.

John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'"
John 1:23 John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet: "I am a voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'"

When you say "fulfilling the Messianic Prophecies" it makes me remember the prophecies of the OT about the coming restored but better new Jerusalem, the Jerusalem for example of Ezekiel... (and in the NT the "New Jerusalem") == this coming event in Ezekiel is not at all just an ordinary worldly kingdom, but something rather more.... Ergo, that's a future event in both the Old and New Testaments. It hasn't yet been fulfilled. So if you simply say "not yet fulfilled" that's merely correct, but not the things that tell you whether Jesus is the Christ. Would you seek to wait until after it's all over, and the New Jerusalem has come, in the world to come? That's probably longer than your lifetime into the future, or might be.

 

[halbhh]

I have often asked theists how they would test their beliefs. None of them ever seem to come up with a test that does not rely on almost pure confirmation bias. That is why people will say that the faith of Christians is the same as the faith of Muslims.

But you could show us to be wrong. What sort of test for your beliefs do you have? In case you did not know you implied that there was such a test when you propose forming a hypothesis. The test of a hypothesis is a key part of its formation. Without a way to test one only has an ad hoc explanation. Not a hypothesis.

The only possible testing of Jesus's words as far as I can think of is for an individual person to personally do the instructions themselves.

You'd need something like curiosity or an urge to find out, I suppose. For me personally the motive was to improve my life by gleaning out anything useful here and now in life right now, for gain. I tested the things that were different than how I'd been living my life (which was most of the things He instructed).

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only possible testing of Jesus's words as far as I can think of is for an individual person to personally do the instructions themselves.

You'd need something like curiosity or an urge to find out, I suppose. For me personally the motive was to improve my life by gleaning out anything useful here and now in life right now, for gain. I tested the things that were different than how I'd been living my life (which was most of the things He instructed).

And that tells us that you have no hypothesis. That is no a proper test. It is terribly subject to the confirmation bias that you were complaining about. In other words, you have admitted to the fact that you cannot form a proper hypothesis and do not have reliable evidence for your beliefs. You may have convinced yourself, but it appears to be largely due to confirmation bias.

 

[idea]

They "worshipped Jesus instead of following him on his same path. They made Jesus into a mere religion instead of a journey towards union with God and everything else. Christianity became a religion of belonging and believing instead of a religion of transformation." - Richard Rohr

When a word like "Christian" becomes so attached to anti-science, racist, sexist, homophobic, privileged hypocritical child molesters ... There are things in the New Testament I absolutely love about Jesus - blessed are the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart - beautiful! I do not identify as "Christian" because that word now has too many negative connotations... so.... spiritual but not religious for me.

 

[halbhh]

And that tells us that you have no hypothesis. That is no a proper test. It is terribly subject to the confirmation bias that you were complaining about. In other words, you have admitted to the fact that you cannot form a proper hypothesis and do not have reliable evidence for your beliefs. You may have convinced yourself, but it appears to be largely due to confirmation bias.

Sure, if I didn't even bother to set up any proper test, then I'd not have a proper test.

Why assume so?

Might you be (accidentally) imposing some 'confirmation bias' in that assumption itself? (e.g. don't assume your conclusions, but test)

I tried varying the parameters for years, trying every way that came to mind that might affect the outcomes, to see if I could cause a bad outcome (test to disprove -- test to failure).

The testing is to really do the instruction, but to vary everything that isn't the key thing, in a variety of new tests, over time.

Trying to get a failure.

That's the beauty of the scientific method -- everyone can try. Of course, God is not an inert object, so....it's not going to be impersonal, this kind of test. i.e. if the instruction tested says "love your neighbor as yourself" (the first one I tried and then retested about 25 ways over years), then it's not impersonal, but involves...relating... Love can feel vulnerable.

....so, depending on who you are, you may or may feel up to that. I say try something anyway. Maybe pick an easier one, like trying to always follow the golden rule. That's probably less scary at the start.

 

[Deeje]

Jesus told the apostles, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" Mark 4:12

Jesus wants some to understand, but the vast majority of humanity he wants to leave in the dark because if they did understand they might be forgiven of their sins and Jesus clearly doesn't want that.

You know, I disagree with scripture being posted without context because it can imply things that are simply not true, or are so skewed that the wrong meaning is presented as if it was fact.

Please allow me demonstrate with the scripture you quoted.....
What was the background to Jesus’ statement? He had just given another illustration......

Mark 4:3-9....
“Listen. Look! The sower went out to sow. 4 As he was sowing, some seeds fell alongside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. 5 Others fell on rocky ground where there was not much soil, and they immediately sprang up because the soil was not deep. 6 But when the sun rose, they were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seeds fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them, and they yielded no fruit. 8 But others fell on the fine soil, and growing up and increasing, they began to yield fruit, and they were bearing 30, 60, and 100 times more.” 9 Then he added: “Let the one who has ears to listen, listen.”

Remember that Jesus’ audience was exclusively Jewish, because they were the ones to whom he was sent.....not to the scribes and Pharisees, (whom he roundly denounced) but to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. (Matthew 15:24) You have to understand why those sheep were “lost”....and why Jesus was “sent” to them.

“10 Now when he was alone, those around him with the Twelve began questioning him about the illustrations. 11 He said to them: “To you the sacred secret of the Kingdom of God has been given, but to those outside all things are in illustrations, 12 so that, though looking, they may look and still not see, and though hearing, they may hear and still not get the sense of it; nor will they ever turn back and receive forgiveness.”

Who was Jesus talking to, as opposed to who he was talking about? Who was the “you” and who were the “they”?

Many of the Jewish people came to hear Jesus speak and to experience his miracles first hand. But the religious leaders and those whom they were able to influence, were not one bit impressed by his discourses or his miracles whom they attributed to “Beelzebub”. To them, he was nothing but an apostate trouble maker who needed to be stopped. They did not have ‘ears to listen’.

When he said to those who asked about the meaning of the parable, he said..... “To you the sacred secret of the Kingdom of God has been given, but to those outside all things are in illustrations, 12 so that, though looking, they may look and still not see, and though hearing, they may hear and still not get the sense of it; nor will they ever turn back and receive forgiveness.”

Do you see who he was talking to? Do you see who he was talking about? Who had “ears to listen” and who didn’t?

Knowing the background to Jesus’ statement, you will understand how many times God had sent his prophets to his rebellious people, and each time they were met with resistance and a refusal to be corrected. Jesus called them, “the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her”....(Matthew 23:37)....so against that backdrop, Jesus’ words become clear.....to those who came to hear and who got the sense of his illustrations, the “sacred secret” of the Kingdom of God was revealed.....but to those who heard but found nothing of value in his sermons, “they” would never get the sense of any of his teachings because they were of the same ilk as those who had been disobedient to God, being influenced by their corrupt, spiritually deaf, religious leaders for centuries.

These ones were only looking for things to criticize because Jesus’ speech and actions did not compare with what they had been led to believe concerning their Messiah. Their leaders had given the people a false expectation about what their Messiah would be....and do. Those false expectations are still in place to this day.....and their Messiah has never put in an appearance. These are the ones who got nothing out of his teachings and in the process, (because their spiritual eyes and ears were closed) condemned themselves.

When Gentiles were added to the Christian followers of Jesus, (Acts 15:14) the response of people would still be basically the same.....there would still be a “you” and “they”....’good soil and bad soil’.......“sheep and goats”....right to the end.

In verses 14-19 he gave them a detailed explanation of the meaning of the illustration.....and it made perfect sense to those who were open to his message. This is also true today.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

You know, I disagree with scripture being posted without context because it can imply things that are simply not true, or are so skewed that the wrong meaning is presented as if it was fact.

Please allow me demonstrate with the scripture you quoted.....
What was the background to Jesus’ statement? He had just given another illustration......

Mark 4:3-9....
“Listen. Look! The sower went out to sow. 4 As he was sowing, some seeds fell alongside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. 5 Others fell on rocky ground where there was not much soil, and they immediately sprang up because the soil was not deep. 6 But when the sun rose, they were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seeds fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them, and they yielded no fruit. 8 But others fell on the fine soil, and growing up and increasing, they began to yield fruit, and they were bearing 30, 60, and 100 times more.” 9 Then he added: “Let the one who has ears to listen, listen.”

Remember that Jesus’ audience was exclusively Jewish, because they were the ones to whom he was sent.....not to the scribes and Pharisees, (whom he roundly denounced) but to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. (Matthew 15:24) You have to understand why those sheep were “lost”....and why Jesus was “sent” to them.

“10 Now when he was alone, those around him with the Twelve began questioning him about the illustrations. 11 He said to them: “To you the sacred secret of the Kingdom of God has been given, but to those outside all things are in illustrations, 12 so that, though looking, they may look and still not see, and though hearing, they may hear and still not get the sense of it; nor will they ever turn back and receive forgiveness.”

Who was Jesus talking to, as opposed to who he was talking about? Who was the “you” and who were the “they”?

Many of the Jewish people came to hear Jesus speak and to experience his miracles first hand. But the religious leaders and those whom they were able to influence, were not one bit impressed by his discourses or his miracles whom they attributed to “Beelzebub”. To them, he was nothing but an apostate trouble maker who needed to be stopped. They did not have ‘ears to listen’.

When he said to those who asked about the meaning of the parable, he said..... “To you the sacred secret of the Kingdom of God has been given, but to those outside all things are in illustrations, 12 so that, though looking, they may look and still not see, and though hearing, they may hear and still not get the sense of it; nor will they ever turn back and receive forgiveness.”

Do you see who he was talking to? Do you see who he was talking about? Who had “ears to listen” and who didn’t?

Knowing the background to Jesus’ statement, you will understand how many times God had sent his prophets to his rebellious people, and each time they were met with resistance and a refusal to be corrected. Jesus called them, “the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her”....(Matthew 23:37)....so against that backdrop, Jesus’ words become clear.....to those who came to hear and who got the sense of his illustrations, the “sacred secret” of the Kingdom of God was revealed.....but to those who heard but found nothing of value in his sermons, “they” would never get the sense of any of his teachings because they were of the same ilk as those who had been disobedient to God, being influenced by their corrupt, spiritually deaf, religious leaders for centuries.

These ones were only looking for things to criticize because Jesus’ speech and actions did not compare with what they had been led to believe concerning their Messiah. Their leaders had given the people a false expectation about what their Messiah would be....and do. Those false expectations are still in place to this day.....and their Messiah has never put in an appearance. These are the ones who got nothing out of his teachings and in the process, (because their spiritual eyes and ears were closed) condemned themselves.

When Gentiles were added to the Christian followers of Jesus, (Acts 15:14) the response of people would still be basically the same.....there would still be a “you” and “they”....’good soil and bad soil’.......“sheep and goats”....right to the end.

In verses 14-19 he gave them a detailed explanation of the meaning of the illustration.....and it made perfect sense to those who were open to his message. This is also true today.

Sounds like what you're saying is God isn't interested in saving the recalcitrant, he's only interested in saving those whom he decides are interested in hearing Jesus' message. That's basically what I said the first time: God is only interested in saving a particular group of people--those who are willing to swear fealty to him and Jesus. The rest he chooses to leave in darkness, to hides the secrets of the kingdom from. There's so much I could go into regarding the mystic mystery religions of the times that the gospel writers were influenced by when they were writing all this guff. You know I've said I don't believe Jesus said a word of what is attributed to him because nobody wrote down anything he said, including this cockamamie philosophy mysteries of the kingdom gimcrackery.

 

[Tiberius]

Many people leave Christianity because they cannot find answers to their questions. Or when the dark sides of Christianity are revealed, such as the crimes of Catholic priests, which we will not name. For example, when some terrible things happen in a person's family, someone dies and the person cannot understand why this is happening, they begin to lose faith. I am just also interested in this topic and am writing aт essay on Christianity describing its various aspects. I have read many different papers on the personal relationship of people to religion at Christianity Essay Examples and Research Papers on Samploon.com. Free argumenttive, persuasive and narrative essay samples and have come across stories of people who have ceased to believe. The reasons for such a change are usually found in negative life experiences when a person thinks that there is no God since he allowed something terrible to happen.

It's incorrect to think most atheists are athiests because they are angry at God. I mean, how does it make sense to not believe in a being you believe is fictional because they didn't take a particular action? An action that you believe they couldn't take because they are fictional? That's like me saying I'm not going to believe in Luke Skywalker because he didn't come and use the Force to help me out that time.

 

[sealchan]

Many people leave Christianity because they cannot find answers to their questions. Or when the dark sides of Christianity are revealed, such as the crimes of Catholic priests, which we will not name. For example, when some terrible things happen in a person's family, someone dies and the person cannot understand why this is happening, they begin to lose faith. I am just also interested in this topic and am writing aт essay on Christianity describing its various aspects. I have read many different papers on the personal relationship of people to religion at Christianity Essay Examples and Research Papers on Samploon.com. Free argumenttive, persuasive and narrative essay samples and have come across stories of people who have ceased to believe. The reasons for such a change are usually found in negative life experiences when a person thinks that there is no God since he allowed something terrible to happen.

I suspect that at the root of why many people leave Christianity is because they have had a superficial relationship to their native religion and in experiencing or reflecting on their own life and its specific events, that relationship has proven to be inadequate. In my experience, much of Christianity is lagging far behind Western psychology and comparative mythology and so we have disinterest and a general disconnect. Motion pictures and other media supply ample alternative and much less literalistic examples of the mythic motifs and moral applications that are in the Bible and that were once more valuable when we did not have so many alternatives to choose from. Since Christianity is nearly creatively dead, it isn't able to compete against newer, more relevant perspectives that provide, simultaneously, much better entertainment value. There are, for example, countless examples of how self-sacrifice leads to the ultimate good and to personal redemption in our modern media of which the Bible authors might approve but for the din of the contemporary literalists who fear any sort of corruption of their petrified interpretations.

Also there is a constant desire to dumb down the complexities and incongruities found in the Bible which could form the basis of a deeper, richer reading and yield much more fertile ground for using the Bible as a basis for interpreting and adapting to modern life. As I have said in many threads, the literalists are killing their own religious tradition and creating a culture of willful ignorance in order to try and keep what must change from changing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus told the apostles, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" Mark 4:12

Jesus wants some to understand, but the vast majority of humanity he wants to leave in the dark because if they did understand they might be forgiven of their sins and Jesus clearly doesn't want that.

I do not interpret that verse that way. When Jesus said "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!" I think Jesus was referring to those people who see the secret of the kingdom of God that has been given to to them. In other words, those people who see the secret of the kingdom of God that had been given to to them will turn to that kingdom of God and be forgiven, whereas those who do not see it will not turn to it and be forgiven.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's incorrect to think most atheists are athiests because they are angry at God. I mean, how does it make sense to not believe in a being you believe is fictional because they didn't take a particular action? An action that you believe they couldn't take because they are fictional? That's like me saying I'm not going to believe in Luke Skywalker because he didn't come and use the Force to help me out that time.

He said that the reasons for such a change (meaning going from Christianity to atheism) are usually found in negative life experiences when a person thinks that there is no God since he allowed something terrible to happen. These people are not really atheists, they are people who once believed in God but have lost their faith, so they no longer believe in God and the reason they no longer believe in God is because that are angry at at God. I have been very angry at God but I could not become an atheist because I believe that God exists. Apparently these ex-Christian atheists did not really believe in God because if they did they would not be able to stop believing just because they were angry. They'd be like me, stuck with a God they are none too happy with.

The upshot of what I am saying is that atheists who once believed in God but lost their faith are different from atheists who have never believed in God. No, you cannot get angry at a being that you never believed in at all, a being you believe is fictional.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I do not interpret that verse that way. When Jesus said "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!" I think Jesus was referring to those people who see the secret of the kingdom of God that has been given to to them. In other words, those people who see the secret of the kingdom of God that had been given to to them will turn to that kingdom of God and be forgiven, whereas those who do not see it will not turn to it and be forgiven.

That's a good interpretation. All this mystery hearkens back to the cult mystery religions that were in vogue at the time.

The mystery religions and Christianity had many similar features—e.g., a time of preparation before initiation and periods of fasting; baptism and banquets; vigils and early-morning ceremonies; pilgrimages and new names for the initiates.

Mystery religion - Mystery religions and Christianity

 

[Marcion]

Perhaps people leave Christianity for the same reasons that they don't join.
Christianity is quite scattered, there are four different versions of the same story about Jesus, they conflict with each other and they differ significantly in their outlook.
Christianity also struggles with rationality, there are a number of things you simply have to believe which don't seem to be in harmony with reality.
Also, Christianity lacks a consistent set of spiritual practices like in yoga or Buddhism. They may have once been there if you carefully study the teachings of Jesus but they must have been lost at a very early stage.
What is left are rituals such as the one involving the symbolic flesh and blood of Jesus, singing in church or sacramental rituals and you have to believe that they do anything good at all.

People used to believe stuff more easily but in this age of education, science and practical thinking they have become more demanding.

 

[Tiberius]

He said that the reasons for such a change (meaning going from Christianity to atheism) are usually found in negative life experiences when a person thinks that there is no God since he allowed something terrible to happen. These people are not really atheists, they are people who once believed in God but have lost their faith, so they no longer believe in God and the reason they no longer believe in God is because that are angry at at God. I have been very angry at God but I could not become an atheist because I believe that God exists. Apparently these ex-Christian atheists did not really believe in God because if they did they would not be able to stop believing just because they were angry. They'd be like me, stuck with a God they are none too happy with.

The upshot of what I am saying is that atheists who once believed in God but lost their faith are different from atheists who have never believed in God. No, you cannot get angry at a being that you never believed in at all, a being you believe is fictional.

I am an atheist who was once a Christian. My departure from Christianity had nothing to do with any bad experience, nor any anger or hatred towards God. I simply examined the arguments for both sides and found the pro-God arguments to be fundamentally flawed. I also found the pro-atheism arguments to be a lot more convincing.

In any case, the claim that most people who leave Christianity because they are angry at God is incorrect.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am an atheist who was once a Christian. My departure from Christianity had nothing to do with any bad experience, nor any anger or hatred towards God. I simply examined the arguments for both sides and found the pro-God arguments to be fundamentally flawed. I also found the pro-atheism arguments to be a lot more convincing.

That's rather common these days for someone to go from Christianity to atheism, but I never would have guessed you had been a Christian. So what was it about the pro-God arguments that you found to be fundamentally flawed and what was it about the pro-atheism arguments that were a lot more convincing?

In any case, the claim that most people who leave Christianity because they are angry at God is incorrect.

Yes, I agree, that is not the reason most people leave Christianity. In fact, I think that is rather uncommon because most Christians will defend their God till the bitter end!
By contrast, I still believe in God no matter the crap He hurls at me, but I am not going to defend Him for such.

 

[Tiberius]

That's rather common these days for someone to go from Christianity to atheism, but I never would have guessed you had been a Christian. So what was it about the pro-God arguments that you found to be fundamentally flawed and what was it about the pro-atheism arguments that were a lot more convincing?

I found the pro-God arguments to be based on flawed logic, committing many logical fallacies. There are, of course, too many to name, since there are many different arguments for God. If you would like an example, give me an argument for God and I'll tell you where I find it lacking.

The pro-atheism arguments were really based on two things. First, pointing out how none of the pro-God arguments were valid, and secondly, showing that God isn't required to explain the universe.

Yes, I agree, that is not the reason most people leave Christianity. In fact, I think that is rather uncommon because most Christians will defend their God till the bitter end!
By contrast, I still believe in God no matter the crap He hurls at me, but I am not going to defend Him for such.

Have you cinsidered that it isn't God hurling said crap at you, but rather just the random events of the universe?

 

[Trailblazer]

I found the pro-God arguments to be based on flawed logic, committing many logical fallacies. There are, of course, too many to name, since there are many different arguments for God. If you would like an example, give me an argument for God and I'll tell you where I find it lacking.

I do not have an 'argument' for God, because God cannot be proven to exist with an argument. As I always say, the greatest proof that God exists are the Messengers of God, so you will have to tell me how that belief is lacking and why.

The pro-atheism arguments were really based on two things. First, pointing out how none of the pro-God arguments were valid, and secondly, showing that God isn't required to explain the universe.

I do not know what all the other pro-God arguments are, I only know my own position, so I cannot say is they are lacking. However the argument that God is required to explain the universe is lacking. Creation is not proof that God exists because Creation could have come into existence in another way. By contrast, the Messengers of God could not exist unless God exists, and there is no other explanation for their existence or for the existence of all the great religions they established. This is a logical point.

Have you cinsidered that it isn't God hurling said crap at you, but rather just the random events of the universe?

Yes, I have considered it and it is probably true, or it could be just what God has fated for me. I don't really know but God works for the fall guy. And here is the thing: If God is responsible for my fate then God is the appropriate fall guy. That is logic 101.

 

[Tiberius]

I do not have an 'argument' for God, because God cannot be proven to exist with an argument. As I always say, the greatest proof that God exists are the Messengers of God, so you will have to tell me how that belief is lacking and why.

The strength of a person's belief is not sufficient to show that their belief is correct. And someone claiming to be a messenger from God is likewise not sufficient to show that their claim is correct.

I do not know what all the other pro-God arguments are, I only know my own position, so I cannot say is they are lacking. However the argument that God is required to explain the universe is lacking. Creation is not proof that God exists because Creation could have come into existence in another way. By contrast, the Messengers of God could not exist unless God exists, and there is no other explanation for their existence or for the existence of all the great religions they established. This is a logical point.

There a plenty of explanations for the existence of people who claim to be messengers from God.

Yes, I have considered it and it is probably true, or it could be just what God has fated for me. I don't really know but God works for the fall guy. And here is the thing: If God is responsible for my fate then God is the appropriate fall guy. That is logic 101.

Of course, if God is responsible for your fate, then you can't be held accountable for anything you do.

 

[John1.12]

Why do people leave Christianity?

Thoughts.

They leave' christianity ' because they are not saved .

 

[Trailblazer]

The strength of a person's belief is not sufficient to show that their belief is correct. And someone claiming to be a messenger from God is likewise not sufficient to show that their claim is correct.

Of course a claim would not be proof that the claim is true as that would be circular reasoning. Evidence is what is needed to support any claims.

There a plenty of explanations for the existence of people who claim to be messengers from God.

There are explanations for them but the explanations for the true Messengers of God are different from the explanations for the false messengers, and it is easy enough to distinguish the two from each other if you use a set of criteria. Since you are the king of criteria, why don't you come up with a set of criteria for a true Messenger of God?

Of course, if God is responsible for your fate, then you can't be held accountable for anything you do.

Nope, God is only responsible for what I am not able to freely choose (bolded below). God is not responsible for my moral choices since I have free will to choose.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.” Some Answered Questions, p. 248