Видео

愛主要用三四成，可喝飲

If you differentiated between Biblical Christianity which focuses on reading and teaching from the scriptures versus religions that mix Christianity, with man made fads or traditions and decrees, things would be come clearer. Biblical churches tend to be quite balanced between the genders. Churches that focus on their traditions tend to market something that appeals to women more.

Please, let Christ judge who is Chritian. How would you know if there are more women Christian in the world? Who gaves you authorities to make this claims. And don't say church! This is such a dystopian reality.

The feminization of the Church is a real thing that has been ongoing for some time since men shifted to factory work leaving behind largely women congregations for pastors to tend to. Leon Podles (Catholic) details this and how church emphasis has varied over time in his book "The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity." David Murrow just focuses on this same subject from a Protestant/Evangelical perspective. And though you may not like stereotypes, Murrow's stereotypes are correct more often than not in most Protestant/Evangelical churches. Most churches are 60 to 70% female and it is easy to see why when you notice the structure of service. The service itself is very passive where there is little action. Men prefer for interaction which is why men's bible study and evangelism will be better attended than church service. The songs sung at service overwhelmingly cater to women and many men feel uncomfortable singing them as Murrow is correct in saying many are "Jesus is my boyfriend" type songs. The message from the pulpit often speaks out on men's sins while not speaking out on women's sins. The men notice when they are vilified and women are given a pass pretending they are all perfect angels. Men also notice they are told about their responsibilities and how they must be better but are never told from the pulpit that they are given that authority to lead from God and that wives should support and submit to it. Men who read their bibles know many important lessons and teachings are ignored for fear of upsetting feminized grandma and the collection plate getting light. In the modern era, many men want the church to be sanctuary from a feminized world that demonizes them simply for being. But men discover the modern church in many cases is just as feminized so after going to service for a few weeks or months, they will opt out and instead spend their time in spaces that don't demonize them like the online theological channels you mentioned, like evangelism that encourages men's initiative, like men's bible study where they can learn the whole bible without the intrusion of feminism. Finally, I am not against you doing apologetics or any woman for that matter. Nobody is stopping you from doing that. But I hope you recognize the larger issue is making a place for men in Church. I think we will eventually adjust but it will take some time as some of these feminized beliefs are slowly challenged and walked back. A strong, healthy church is one that has a ratio closer to 50/50% and it is to women's and children's benefit that men are supported as respected members of church.

The problem wit most "churches" is that they are aimed at women. The programs, sermons & teachings are emotion based. Men, for the most part are more interested in fact based, logical teachings. Just my observation and opinion as an almost 60 year old believer.

We are sprinkled all over, the body of Christ is the church, the individual children of God, who are born again who walk through faith in spirit. I have met many brothers and sisters who have the spirit of God within them. Denominations are the devils synagogues, when the way, truth, and life (Jesus Christ) is the true faith and alone his fathers word and aswell the Commandment of Christ. Remember that the body should not divide itself, that it should not say i have no need of you, but what does the denominations say? They are divided, but not those of the body who are the children of God, individually. You must be born again, John 3:3->>

I don't think that's the only reason. The tendency to the divine feminine and how churches keep increasing their approach toward emotionalism instead of the pursuit of biblical true, are some of the main reasons.

I don’t understand why this is surprising. Most women are not interested in the logical structure and foundation of ANY system; they don’t care about its coherence. This has always been the concern of men. I also don’t see why we should ‘fix’ this-it’s a manifestation of the individuals harmonizing with their nature. There are always exceptions of course, but attempts at reforming the system to obtain the 50/50 split will destroy the thing in itself. This happened in gaming, in politics, in the university, why would expect a different outcome here? You’ll drive out all the men as soon as you try to homogenize.

Im catholic but go to a non-denominational mega church for the social aspect since theres a lot of young people there. Im also recently christian again (used to be hardcore atheist). The church definitely caters to women. The pastors constantly bring up p0rn and s3xu4l sin. They bring up stories of "guys" that need help. So it always feels like the pastors are targeting sins men have but never women. One of the pastors is also always making self deprecating humor when its a story that involves his wife. The bible passages they read tend to only be from the same few books and it tends to usually revolve around mundane topics like s3x, being faithful and spreading the word. There isnt a lot of depth. Lot of fake smiles and ultra shallow conversations among the young people.

Single or divorced men are not generally accepted, trusted, or wanted by churches.

Offline there are more Christian women? Someone claiming to be Christian doesn't make them Christian. Go to a Christian dating site or a Bible study, you'll find more men.

@BiblicalBookworm , Was your focus mostly on Catholocism, or did you look across all denominations of Christianity? That wasn't clear to me in your thesis.

I can explain this, but it will cause a lot of 'problems' with the context we now have of 'scriptures'. The difference between men and women is one of the primary lessons of scripture. Very sad is the meaning of what was meant when Jesus said, "Pick up your 'cross' (♀️) and (♂️) 'follow me'. All the 'teachers' in the Torah have 'feminine' names... Torah (teaching), Ruah (spirit), Rah (evil) are all 'feminine' words. I have 'the' THEODICY and we are all going to be 'sad'.

Another feminist take on Christianity. 🤦

Men like to "fight." So we "fight" online. lol.

Bc men can smell BS

I think this is false but I do live in a city that is mostly democratic atheist.

The role of theology is masculine that’s why.

As a man, I can say that local pastors speak for small congregations, so the message is general (& poor). On RUclips, I have access to the biggest masterminds of the world. My pastor is not the biggest mastermind.

I thought that you were American. Now I'm curious. What is your native language?

You points are good, I saw a good quote about the sysyfying of the bible turned men away. The maguange in new bibles are land and misleading I like original versions. WOKE is garbage. There is no appreciation today of the mens point of view, the debate channels are great, with men in the lead. Pushing the women perspective conversation tone turns off both men and women. It is the total passifying of conversation that men find boaring. They cant lead they dont care. Jesus was also about defence and stand your ground, take the lead. If you dont have strong leaders you dont have followers. No one respects the good guy or the nice guy, its the strong independent guy and the leader they respect. Men are now waking up learning this the hard way from low moral women.

Gossip, and femanism in the churches are primary drivers for men staying home. There you go. No more research needed. You are welcome.

Congrats for the great video and channel. I really liked it and that's why I subscribed.

Of course, science will not explain itself because it's a field of philosophy called epistemology that describes what is science and what is not. So it has nothing to do with religion. Science and religion are two complete things. You can hava a religion and accept science, but most people nowadays end up looking for pseudoscience such as creationism and intelligent design. Professor lenox for example, was already debunked and even did things that are considered disonest for some atheist and science channels. I disagree for intense, that's not god of the gaps, saying what characteristics this first cause has by deducing philosophically is not only a scientific investigation, but also if he claims without showing evidences that the first cause hypothesis has all those characteristics and it's a god, it's the same thing. It's the fallacy of the false premise, if lennox just claims without showing the reasons behind. He says the other explanation is unscientific and does the same thing with his own. As for the analogy of a ford car, we have evidences that it was created by humans, but the universe and life, we have zero. We can't just conclude that by the argument the it appears to have a creator, it is one. lenox forgets that science is based on empirical evidences. I agree that the hypothesis god can be discussed philosophically and there are good philosophical discussions and arguments despite not agreeing with them, but scientifically speaking doesn't make any sense for me. He basically says that because science can't define itself, it needs philosophy, but ignores that philosophy will only do that and help us define what is science, it's irrational thinking just because of that, god is scientifically. He should have learned that one thing has nothing to do with the other. Yes, the argument science doesn't need god to explain nature doesn't prove god doesn't exist, but It shows it's not necessary to explain. In other words, believe if you have faith, i don't know why some christians get offended with just faith. They say: no! I will prove god exists with science. Nature obeys laws, i'd say natural laws, the laws of nature is a way created to describe how things work. It's an approximation, it's not because the name law is used, it doesn't mean that it was a god ruler who created those laws, doctor lenox has failed a lot and so far he didn't show any supernatural laws explaining reality. He just tries in a desperate way cherry picking things to use in his arguments, and ignores what doesn't fit in. No, it has nothing to do with mediaval theology, they didn't get those ideas by reading the bible. The right answer we could say here is: some mediaval thinkers contributed to science. Like Guilherme ockham, who was a christian and defended that science and religion are two separate things. But this one, lenox so far didn't mention, as you progress the video talking about his arguments. See how some intelectual christians only show what they want? Lewis was a believer, that sentence is just his opinion. Kepler was also giving his personal opinion, when he disagreed with the church, he was treated differently. Science can't bury god. i agree and i'd say that's not even the goal of science. For me the most convincing explanation i 've heard is this: Science can't bury god because of misinformation, god is really important for politics, influential religious leaders, people are taught since children that life only pays off with having a god. The promise of an afterlife in an eternal paradise. Science can't do anything against that. As for evolution, the majority of scientists, even religious accept evolution, lenox even distorted richard dawkins about natural selection, that was exposed in one of jon perry's channel. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense in a book conciling science and religion, he denying evolution.