I'm a christian from london.
Its quite striking that in london you have churches that are a million years old, next to glass modern buildings.

And wojtek (is that pronounced voitek?), is it not possible to be a cathlic by heritage, and not a church-goer? Because that is easily the case with three quarters of my country .
The truth is that this 21st century internet age of ours leaves little time for religion.

tizerist

Would you mind answering the questions? Since you are indeed Christian, it would be nice to have your responses as well. It creates balance in a way.

BTW - I disagree that it is the 21st Century Internet Age alone that leaves little time for religion. For the young generation, there is a bit of truth in that...but what about everyone else? In all honesty, I see many social "institutions" falling apart, which to me indicates that the causes are much deeper. There is always something more.

Do share.

1) Do you attend church and how often?

I do not regularly attend church. I don't think I've been to a church services in years. If I had a Christian friend who was a church goer, I would consider attending with them though, just because I find it interesting and some churches have very talented musicians.

2) If you don't go weekly, why not? If you do go weekly, why?

I don't go because I don't believe. I attended regularly (on my own, without my parents) for a couple of years as a child, and then started thinking for myself. I haven't looked back since.

3) What do you see as the reason(s) church attendance is declining overall?

Honestly, I don't see Christianity any differently than any of the other long forgotten religions. Give it a couple of thousand years and it'll be long forgotten also.

I think that there are also a number of Christians that are just fed up with church agendas and being made to feel less (looking for a word here...virtuous? In touch with Christ? Christian? Bah. You know what I'm getting at.) just because they don't attend every Sunday without fail or throw large sums of money into the collection plate. (Disclaimer: Before I get flamed, I'm aware that not all churches are like that.)

That's not true in all organized religions. I'm sorry, but I feel the need to defend my statement.

While in my church, you find some radical minded people who do think they're better than others, our church strongly believes that all life is equal and no one person is better than another. In fact, people who think otherwise are not Christ like, in my religious context.

The purposes for separate churches, I believe, is to help people find truth. While some do come out and say they are better than other churches, not all of them do. Maybe I'm completely naive and my church is the only church to help people understand that everyone is a child of God, but I doubt that.

I guess you could fairly say that my church says we're better than others, even though I don't think of it that way. My church believes that we have the fullness of the truth, while other churches are trying to do everything in their power to obtain that truth. I don't think my church is any better than any other church who tries their hardest to become like Christ. It's not their fault the truth has been distorted over time.

I am happy for you that you can have such strong feelings for your church and organized religion even though I don’t share your sentiments. My purpose for posting is not to discourage anyone from or encouraging anyone to depart from what they think works for them, as many people are where they are because of choice and that is a good thing.

I did not come to my conclusions because of what others said or told me, I have done years of study and examination of many different religions and religious books, my personal experiences came out of Christianity. I am not a Christian by choice and I could no more call myself a Christian any more than I could call myself a member of the KKK.

All labels/labeling aside, I have a more than average understanding of the bible and Christianity, to include its religious connotations and its history. I do believe in God but my understanding of God and my spiritual outlooks are different from Christianity in that I don’t discriminate and have concluded all religions are of God or none of them are of God, as it don’t work both ways. I see all people as a family with the same Father or none at all.

I think organized religion is just the oldest form of discrimination and a way to dehumanize others thereby making it easy to introduce hate and destruction and murder. Once you can see others as outside of God they become fair game, a target, to be disrespected and treated differently and mostly, that has seem to be the goal of organized religion from its inception/history.

Anyone that comes away with those sentiments from a religious book has completely misunderstood the teachings and holds the truth in unrighteousness, meaning they themselves need to get clean/rght, as righteousness is only corrupted when put into an unclean container!

That was where I was at.
Not where I am.
I realize that it rains on the just and unjust.
Also I know what I believe will continue to grow as I search and as I age. That which does not grow ultimately dies.

I have found my pearl in the fields; no one else could find that for me or lead me to it.

If I retained what I had felt indoctrinated into me as a child, I would have forsaken my brother and would have abandoned my father. Fortunately, I learned, for myself that these people are human: one with a disease that he can not cure, the other with something that was part of him that he had no choice in. There was no moral failing on either of their part as my childhood nature would have had me to believe and if I would have turned my back on them due to a belief, then the moral failure would have been mine alone.

I will no longer participate on this particular thread.

I'm - well - I read the Bible. I think that the church does more harm than good for their own religion about 50% of the time, so I don't find it all that necissary for the betterment of my own soul. If we have something in writing that we can interpret ourselves, why should we let some old and possibly biased man tell us what we should believe? For example : their are many documentations now that King James himself was bisexual [if not entirely gay], so many fellow Christians use this to justify that homosexuality must not be a sin because God had used a gay man [even if it was largely shrouded in secrecy at the time] to spread his message so well that most modern Christians use the KJV exclusively. The church, or at least all churches I've been to, refuse to even acknowledge this, of course. I'm not trying to sway anybody's opinion, I'm just saying that the doubt is out there and the church seems to be ignoring it [along with other uncommon ideas about their religion], which rubs me the wrong way. I think these are the reasons that many people don't attend church services any longer - there's simply a massive trust issue and a great deal of people that simply misunderstand the doctrine. I'd even argue that most contestors of the religion have never read the titular Holy Book to completion, yet they continue to bash the practices of my faith on what seems to be purely concept.

It's too bad that this problem is a difficult one to solve, because I believe church and state should be absolutely separated. Nothing should be passed without secular backing; gay marriage is an example of an issue that was religious in nature. Issues like that should NOT be present in our government (by this, I mean gay marriage should not have been an issue. It should have been legalized due to its overwhelming affiliation with solely religious perspectives).

Religion is screwing up politics. Yes, I know it's always been that way, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Take the Republicans. They have policies which generally support the wealthy. They also pander heavily to the religious. Now, those religious people who are poor will likely vote against their own best economic interests by voting on the basis of religion. For example, very many people see issues like abortion and gay marriage as their #1 priority. No matter what other policies a politician might have, these people will support that politician if he agrees with their religious agenda. DESPITE their other policies that ought to hurt them. The south is a prime victim of this trend; they are poor, yet still vote conservative for the social and religious aspects.

It's the rich exploiting the poor through use of religion and it's fundamentally undemocratic.

I believe that children should be kept away from churches (mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.) as long as possible. At minimum to when they stop believing in fairy tales, but better to maturity.

Religion is something serious, which involved beliefs, faith an spirituality. Therefore, choice should be made, after careful consideration, in full consciousness and awareness of the consequences. It's a personal life choice; how can a baby or a child make it and why should parents make it for her/him ?
Many frightening stories are told in churches and "religious education" (drinking blood, eating body, worshipping a tortured person, burning in eternal flame..) even tough these are meant to be symbolic, I'm not sure that a child understand it that way.
Is fear and guilt the best way to educate someone ? I doubt it.
I believe that self-respect and respect for the others, compassion and morality can be taught naturally through parenting and exemplary behaviour.
Seeing that, for example, Christians are killing each other (Catholic vs protestant) even though the very basic are "thou shall not kill" or "love the others like yourself", I tend to think that something is not working there..

Pixelhate

This is priceless...



Yeah...Religion can be confusing for both young and those of us who actually question what role it is to play in our lives as well.

My sister has convinced my 9 year old nephew that he is a Prophet. Unfortunately for him, it has only lead to a deep sense of confusion as to who he is. He feels he 'has to' to be a certain way or his mother won't be proud of him. So much of his innocence is flittering away due to expectations.

Oh, my. That's so sad.

When I hear stories like that, it makes me glad my parents didn't instill any religious dogma in us. We were free to make our own choice about our beliefs. It's sad that so many people are denied that choice...

Wow ! That's nasty & twisted. She uses an innocent so she can be seen as a pure person... maybe she have something to feel guilty about.
I'm very sorry for the boy.

Unlike Christianity which has no Mysticism whatsoever.
The difference being when Jesus does it or says it then it's from God but when some random woman does it she's a witch. Talk about your double standards!
In any case I have had my fair share of strange mystical happenings and usually I don't tell anyone because it freaks even me out. Note: I don't do drugs and don't imbibe alcohol.

tizerist:
By saying Christian you mean you're Protestant as majority of people in England? The situation of Catholicism looks way different in England, Poland, France, Russia and other countries in Europe. In England more and more people stop attending church for some reasons I'm not familiar with. In my country people stopped believing the priests making promises that they collect money for rebuilding churches. My local church was rebuilt when Poland was a communistic country and haven't been renovated till now. It is cold in there, priests are rude for young people and only interested in collecting money from the elderly. This is sick! My bedridden step great-grandmother is very happy when a priest comes to visit her. The only thing he does is taking money from her and driving away with his own car. Children in Poland enjoy religion only because it makes them the same as others. I was such a kid, but only after some time I realised that my faith was very limited and shallow.

As far as my name is pronounced there might be some problems for speakers of non-Slavic languages. We do not need to have transcription to read our words. Wojtek is just a softening of my name. My let's say official name is Wojciech and here we have a problem. I am sure you do not even attempt to learn Polish . Now to make your task easier I would like to simplify the transcription and replace some sounds with the English ones similar in the way they sound:
Wojtek: ['vɒjtek] and Wojciech ['vɒjtʃex] /x/ as in 'loch' "Loch Ness". The /tʃ/ sound is different from the one in Polish. I only found this /tʃ/ because in some way is similar to the Polish one used when pronouncing 'ci' letters.

I don't know whether my answers would mean much since I am not Christian, but here goes:



1) I have been to exactly three church services in my life. The first was when I spent the night at my Catholic cousin's house and I had to go to church with her in the morning (I was very young so my uncle and aunt didn't want to leave me alone). The other two were part of Girl Scouts, something called Scout Sunday. I didn't really take anything from either experience. I was pretty passive about it each time.

2)I don't regularly attend at all. I have no plans to go to another service.

3) I'd like to think it is due to an increase in respect for science and logic. There is less "magical thinking" floating about nowadays because people are generally more educated, and because we know more about the things that confounded us in the past.


And on to my particular feelings and experiences:

I was raised in a fairly secular household. My father believes in the teachings of Jesus insofar as they are good moral guidelines. I think he also believes in God, but I'm a little hazy on that point. To this day, I have no idea what my mother believes. My parents, particularly my father, always told me that I should believe in whatever I felt was right.

As a young child, I briefly believed in God, mainly as an invisible man that watches everything you do and judges you. Yeah, I was maybe a little paranoid, though that seems to me to be the way that many fundamentalists want you to see God. When I was about 10, it struck me that there is no logical reason for there to be an invisible man watching and judging me. There just wasn't any evidence that this man existed, though I didn't give up on the possibility because there wasn't evidence to the contrary, either. So before I had ever even heard the word, I became agnostic.

I tried for several more years to explore spirituality, but the idea of God just never held any water with me. Further, it seems to me that it is more likely that the Bible is a political tool created by men than a work passed down from God. The thing that really seals the deal for me is the number of logical fallacies both within the Bible and passed off by many of it's followers. I have ever been a person guided first by logic, second by other concerns, so having that kind of contradiction made it impossible for me to take the Bible seriously.

I do know what a feeling of spiritual beauty is like, but I find that those feelings in me are directed at science, nature, and humanist ideals; feelings of comfort and serenity are inspired in me by those things, as opposed to a standard religion.

Frankly, I see religion as outdated. We know more about our world now than we did when religion rose to prominence; we know that it has immutable laws, even if we haven't quite pinned down what those are yet. Ultimately, a person's religious beliefs don't matter to me, however, so long as his/her beliefs don't contradict reality. I don't mind when friends pray, for instance, but when a friend expresses strict creationist ideas, I find I have to politely hold my tongue for fear of getting into the kind of argument that doesn't go anywhere. I have a hard time truly understanding those who make their judgments on anything other than logic. When I am presented with someone who will not listen to reason, it frustrates me because it is a totally alien concept.

I suppose I would be considered an agnostic secular humanist. I think that there is the slightest chance that there is a God, though if he does exist, I would more readily see a Deistic approach, in which he created the universe and then let it develop as it would. Secular humanist, because I do have morals and my moral code is directed by the ideas that rationality is the highest good and one's purpose in life is the betterment of the human species.

I believe in God, but, no offense to anyone here, I hate Christianity. My parents make my life hell in the name of that horrid religion. Such as, listening to certain music? you'll go to hell. I used to go to church with my parents, but... I don't anymore. Christianity is THE most destructive religion on the earth. Hitler did what he did in it's name, the crusades, Mayans, Incas, all that knowledge was killed by them. Forgive me once again, of all denominations, I dislike Catholicism the most. Galileo, all of them, tortured, jailed. More power to you if you can associate yourself with DR Dobson, and the 700 club. I believe many Christian things, marriage is between a man and a woman, but I do think that gays/lezbos have a right to be together too, just don't call it marriage, IMO. Like in the sims!
My only "christian" role model, is Christina Aguilera. She says what she does is wrong, she says not to copy her, and she's not afraid of what others think about her. My BFF might start her family soon, she's going with christian schools, and churches... I'm afraid if she does, that's it for 'us'.

It sounds to me like you're a victim of bad experiences and even worse teachers. It is a subject of much interest in the field of university studies on philosophy just how much one's positions are really what one believes to be of reality and how much of one's positions are merely influenced as a reaction to life experiences.

In my case, I have a bit more balanced view, probably because I have plenty of good experiences to counteract the bad ones.



Your parents might be shocked to learn that the idea that certain mere notes can be damning is actually not a scriptural teaching. Its roots are in Gnosticism, but whole churches have fallen victim to this teaching anyway.

The idea that if you play a Buckcherry song even one time, that you're on a speedway train to the darkest pit of Hell is actually the result of human laziness being applied to the concept of quality control.

A constructive alternative would be to ask one's self: "Is this the kind of music that is conducive to me developing the kind of attitude about life that a loving God would want his followers to propagate?"

If you take that approach, and get support from others who are like minded, then regulating your tastes will become much easier and more voluntary. As for the whole "backmasking brainwashes you into Satanism" thing? It has been thoroughly discredited.

Don't trifle yourself with it; but respond as lovingly as you can to anyone who still believes this urban legend, as it is one that refuses to die.

Concerning bad influence, it'd be easier to step out of the thing you like once and ask yourself: "What are the implications of this piece? What messages does it teach that I should be cautious to learn?" The answers may lead to you looking at your favorite material a little differently.

As for what to do next? Don't despair; accommodate gradually. Not everyone can change their leaves cold turkey. Evolution of personality doesn't happen overnight.



You may be surprised to learn that Ken Ham (of Answers in Genesis) actually teamed up with a statistician to write a book called Already Gone. In it, polling results and surveys reveal to several denominations multiple practices from within that may be responsible for children in America abandoning churchgoing IN THE MASSES.

Don't fret; you're not the only "delinquent" in the world. And a few intelligent minds out there do still care what happens to you.



That is a popular belief being propagated on many American university campuses these days. I myself, having attended Ferris, have witnessed plenty of it. Amazingly, few teachers actually back that position. It's primarily angry (sometimes mobs) of students (ironically enough) who adhere most strongly to the view. However, a lot of that position does not measure up when those examples are weighed in context.

Let's start with the obvious first one: Hitler. There was only one church that was truly recognized under Hitler; and that church bore almost no resemblance at all to Christianity other than borrowing a lot of its robes. It brought back a lot of symbolism that was actually a revival of Germanic pagan ritual. In fact, the syncretism prevalent in Hitler's "church" was so off-the-wall, that it inspired this page.

Most prior denominations in Germany at the time, particularly the Lutheran church, were in strong opposition to Hitler's "blasphemous abomination." For more on that, I would strongly recommend reading the book Lutherans Against Hitler: The Untold Story, by Lowell C. Green.

The crusades are another popular topic. Keep in mind that the First Crusade was actually a defensive measure. Islamic fundamentalism was high when the pope ordered it, so the Christian European world at the time was highly worried about an Islamic takeover. Muslims were already kicking down doors in India, and had taken over most of northern Africa in short order.

Contrary to what some of them claimed was taught in the Koran about living peacefully with neighbors, the fact remains that many Jihadists interpreted "living peacefully" as "extinction of any neighbors who can disagree."

With this violence committed in the name of Islam kicking down doors in what is now modern Albania, and Serbia being the backdoor keeping this insanity out of Europe, the powers that be in Europe wanted an answer to the impending threat.

Also, the Archbishop in Jerusalem had begged the Pope for answers: amidst quarreling amongst Jews and Muslims in the region over who had rights to the Temple Hill, Christians had been the peacekeeping buffer. Thus, they had become the abuse sandwich, and were slowly being forced out of the region so that the Jews and Muslims could butt heads without a referee getting in the way.

And, 600-700 years later, much of that same struggle still exists. The First Crusade was an early answer to that. However, the Catholic church made one major blunder: confusing religious duties with civil and governmental ones. It is no surprise that Martin Luther was an early advocate of Separation of Church and State.

(Note: His definition, that the church's affairs not be meddled with by the government. NOT the modern US Supreme Court definition; that any morality which the church agrees with must never be allowed to dictate the actions of any member of the state.)

It was this same government intrusion on the church that lead to the Fourth Crusade, from which most libel against Christianity gets its ammunition. In that Crusade, it wasn't so much Muslims that were under siege. It was cities against other cities within Europe.

The amount of government corruption that was being allowed to dictate the church's actions had taken a huge toll; and now far from evil armies being punished for committing crimes against humanity in the name of Islam, the crusaders of that crusade were merely men of certain cities of heavy commercial influence. Their subjects' only crime? Being successful commercial rivals.

The modern equivalent would be GM and Chrysler workers being specially permitted by Obama and ACORN to burn Ford factories to the ground simply because Ford stood on its own while the other two were bought out, and then having Jeremiah Wright's church sing the praises of the entire thing. (Thankfully, Obama's not THAT crazy...that we know of...)




Yet, to be fair, the Catholic Church HAD been intruded upon by secular government. Under that system, anyone who annoyed a particular religious leader could be declared a traitor to the state. In other words, being a "heretic" was on par with selling out your country's military secrets to its loathe enemies.

Due to the fanaticism of Islam at the time, this view was not entirely without merit either. A Muslim moving to Rome could be just a harmless citizen. But he could just as easily be a malcontent non-assimilating evildoer looking for a way to sneak in an army a-la Trojan Horse-type techniques. As a result, xenophobia was a very popular secular mindset at the time. So it's only logical that church leaders would have been influenced to think that way, regardless of whether or not it was justified.

On the other hand, it is hard for us to understand how we, Christian or Non, are any better, living 600-700 years after the fact. We can have Muhammed Ali running around and be thankful that he is who he is.

But then we have/had Osama, Saddam, al-Zurqawi, al-Sadhr, the Shoe Bomber, the Undie Bomber, and the would-have-been Macinac Bridge Bombers. We had the 9/11 Bombers, we have Rifqa Bary's relatives, the guy that went crazy at that military base in Texas, the list goes on and on.

To be fair, so nobody thinks I'm just picking on Islam, Hindu violence in India is also quite common, both against Christians and against Buddhists. Buddhists in Japan, during Japan's feudal era, were also very known to let their secular concerns influence their faith life. Hence, Japan's extreme xenophobia during that time period. (Japan never fully got over it.)



Sorry, I can't help you there. I don't know much about either of those; since I don't live in the Bible Belt. Also, I am too busy making television to have time to watch much of it anymore.



There used to be this idea of the Heterosexual Life Partner. Meaning, you and another of the same sex live together as if siblings. Yet, there is nothing sexual about it at all. Finding you live and work better with someone of the same sex does not in one bit obligate either party to have to "solidify" the bond around fellatio, cunnilingus, or sodomy. The idea that those are "necessary" steps is a modern invention. So is the idea that marriage needs to be redefined accordingly.

I blame a lot of it on course jokers. They've created an environment where someone who does anything that can be even remotely spun as "gay" must automatically be accused of being so. And then some, who cannot sufficiently counteract this harassment, have to make excuses for that status to feel good about themselves again. From there, it becomes a vicious cycle that destroys the capacity for normal and healthy same-sex, non-sexual relationships to exist. Because suddenly, everything about it is REQUIRED by PURE ARBITRATION to be sexual in nature.

To an extent, the overdoing-it of Unresolved Sexual Tension in opposite sex screen pairings, especially those made canon by TV writers, has had an equally destructive impact on normal, healthy, non-sexual relations between men and women. A guy just likes hanging out with a girl? He'd better be gay; or else the only reason he wants to be near her is to get into her pants.

Name an NBC sitcom. ANY NBC sitcom. And they are probably guilty of this. ABC isn't much better, nor are any of the other networks.



Christina is, in my opinion, 50 different kinds of screwed-up to Sunday. On the other hand, I treat all celebrities with suspicion as a rule-of-thumb. Not to sound like a salesman, but if you absolutely HAVE to have a celebrity role model, I would consider investing in Phillis Schlaffly, or Kelly Stables, or Dr. Judith Reisman (though she's technically Jewish instead of Christian.)

Overall, don't let legalism from your family get you discouraged. If there is anything more you would like to hear from me, just reply back. I'll share with you what I can.

Yes you can, by it's very nature Christianity is Mysticism. There is no doubt about it that a magical sky faerie, a guy running around performing miracles(magic) and other things mentioned in the Bible are "mystic things".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mysticism

1.a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
3. Vague, groundless speculation.

If you go to church and participate in communion, you are participating in the "transubstantiation"; the changing of the host and wine into the body and blood of Christ. I'd say that that is definately a mystic thing.


How about using prayer to try to change someone elses way of thinking? Something which in other threads you've claimed to do, or claimed to be going to do, yourself. Also, what about exorcism to remove "bad spirits" from a person, as happens in some so-called ex-gay "therapy"?



Once again, please provide definitive proof for which sect of Christianity is the authentic one. Something you have yet to do, despite being asked numerous times. You can talk about belief all you want; the rest of us want valid, uncontravertable, verifiable proof. You have yet to give any indication that your particular brand of faith is of any more import than anyone elses. As a matter of fact, you consistantly side-step many issues raised to you, in effect providing a measure of proof that somewhere deep inside, you recognise you don't have a leg to stand on.

I partially agree with you and partially disagree with you on this point. I have noticed too that the idea of Platonic love is disappearing from mainstream consciousness because of hypersexuality in the media. I think that it is a shame because Platonic love is really a beautiful concept, but few people recognize it anymore.

However, there are some people that are naturally sexually attracted to the same sex. Humans are sexual beings, even if it isn't our primary focus in life (though for some it is ). Only a small portion of the population is able to live a sexless life without much of a struggle, so telling someone who is attracted to the same sex that they must restrain themselves is rather cruel, especially considering that there is nothing inherently harmful in indulging in it.

I really don't see the logic in condemning homosexual sex. Does the fact that gay people exist really have any impact on you? Many of the laws of the Bible have some logical purpose, usually for protection. Murdering people hurts society by removing productive members, among other reasons; pork used to have serious issues with bacterial infection. Gay people expressing physical love is a personal thing that doesn't affect anyone else in the society.

More than 70% of homo men are pedophiles, just saying. I think that's harmful. 2, aids. 3, if they are the same, why do they have to do it in public, etc?

It's not fair though, I can't date till I'm 16. My brother is awful, he says that if a girl wants,likes, or is in anyway interested in having sex, that she's a slut. I- how do you think that makes me feel? This is my brother I personally blame my parents parenting. My parents just... I'm never going to be a "christian" parent, that's for sure.

Christianity doesn't have spells, but I can see where you might say prayer is kinda like it. I don't pray because I don't think he really cares, either it's going to happen or not.