Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children

[Diogenes]

In the post "Christians: aren't you embarrassed and angry?" posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1073778
I wrote:

When they finally "get it" and realize most of them are Christians mainly because of childhood indoctrination and step out of the bondage of fantasy they were taught at an early age, then they are embarrassed or angry or both. ... and it has little to do with the reasons stated in post #1.

This suggests the current topic, 'Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children.'

In support of this proposition I quote from the Southern Nazarene University website,
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm where they claim 85% of Christians have their conversion experience ("are saved") at ages 4 to 14 and only 4% after the age of 30.

Parenthetically I note the human brain does not fully develop until about age 25.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

[POI]

Dont understand the question.

Please allow me to clarify.

When asked if you would denounce Christianity, if you were to discover macroevolution is true, (in all it's claims), you stated "no". As discussed prior, you are a Christian based upon early indoctrination <and/or> believing God interacts with you, via "warm sensations". --> As evidenced by our extensive exchange in another thread (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38846).

So my follow up question becomes... How would you then fit such new discovery/information with the likes of Genesis? Meaning, you would then have to 're-translate' Genesis to then adapt to your new found enlightenment(s).

BTW, atheists would still likely be atheists if macroevolution was demonstrated false for them

Must avoid the G-word at all costs, apparently.

I believe you missed my point.

And just so you are aware, I personally do not know if a (G)od or god(s) exist? But I'm pretty confident the one, as mentioned in the Bible, is not what would exist in any capacity -- without having to defy both logic and 'morality'.

[POI]

BTW, atheists would still likely be atheists if macroevolution was demonstrated false for them

Keep in mind that how creationists define 'macroevolution' and how a scientist might use it are likely not the same. To being with, there is just the Theory of Evolution. Talking about time scales with micro/macro is arbitrary and not part of the base theory. Evolution happens. It's so clear that it happens some religious people have had to backpeddle and admit that some form of it happens, but won't see it through to it's obvious conclusion.

They will natter on about dogs producing dogs as if that somehow conflicts with the theory. It doesn't. At some point, one isolated population of dogs may not be able to interbreed with another population of dogs or they may have developed some novel traits. At that point taxonomists might get busy and creationists would probably double down on hard denial. They are all still dogs, but we might end up with a new sub species.

Creationists basically refuse to accept modern biology which includes genomics. If they don't see a crocodile birth a duck they claim victory. The rest of us shake our heads and let them believe what they like, while pointing out to the wider audience they value belief over fact.

True. I call it the "Kirk Cameron syndrome".

[We_Are_VENOM]

When asked if you would denounce Christianity, if you were to discover macroevolution is true, (in all it's claims), you stated "no". As discussed prior, you are a Christian based upon early indoctrination <and/or> believing God interacts with you, via "warm sensations". --> As evidenced by our extensive exchange in another thread (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38846).

So my follow up question becomes... How would you then fit such new discovery/information with the likes of Genesis? Meaning, you would then have to 're-translate' Genesis to then adapt to your new found enlightenment(s).

I still dont understand the question. The "new discovery/information" has not been specifically identified.

Unless you are generally speaking.

And just so you are aware, I personally do not know if a (G)od or god(s) exist? But I'm pretty confident the one, as mentioned in the Bible, is not what would exist in any capacity -- without having to defy both logic and 'morality'.

It may be best for some folks if the God of the Bible didn't exist.

[POI]

When asked if you would denounce Christianity, if you were to discover macroevolution is true, (in all it's claims), you stated "no". As discussed prior, you are a Christian based upon early indoctrination <and/or> believing God interacts with you, via "warm sensations". --> As evidenced by our extensive exchange in another thread (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38846).

So my follow up question becomes... How would you then fit such new discovery/information with the likes of Genesis? Meaning, you would then have to 're-translate' Genesis to then adapt to your new found enlightenment(s).

I still dont understand the question. The "new discovery/information" has not been specifically identified.

Unless you are generally speaking.

If you were to apprehend/infer evolutionary biology, in it's entirety, like that of an evolutionary biologist, would Genesis have to then be 're-translated' in a different way to retain Christianity?

Case/point: A YEC studies to be an evolutionary biologist, which then becomes an OEC; after having to then 're-translate' specific lines in Genesis to continue making some sense.

It may be best for some folks if the God of the Bible didn't exist.

Well, I myself is about what is most probably true. And the logic I possess makes the 'God of the Bible' extremely difficult to accept logically and/or 'morally'. And it's not because I don't WANT it to be true. Quite the contrary. I was indoctrinated early and was a believer. It was not until I read the Bible, and found what I found that lead me to where I am now. Which is, if such a God does exist, this God seems quite incoherent; or not even really possible. But because of my upbringing, it was hard to 'let go', due to INDOCTRINATION. I guess the phrase "get 'em while the're young" wasn't lost on me They got me -- hook, line, and sinker... It took decades to completely shake it...

[We_Are_VENOM]

If you were to apprehend/infer evolutionary biology, in it's entirety, like that of an evolutionary biologist, would Genesis have to then be 're-translated' in a different way to retain Christianity?

Ok, gotcha. To answer the question; it would be more so questioning the validity of anything contradicting the Bible.

So it would be our understanding of science that needs to be re-translated, not the Bible.

Welcome to RELIGION

Case/point: A YEC studies to be an evolutionary biologist, which then becomes an OEC; after having to then 're-translate' specific lines in Genesis to continue making some sense.

Gotcha. I cannot see myself under those circumstances...but by the way you put it, it seems likely that someone may have gotten caught up in that.

Well, I myself is about what is most probably true. And the logic I possess makes the 'God of the Bible' extremely difficult to accept logically and/or 'morally'. And it's not because I don't WANT it to be true. Quite the contrary.

Perhaps you should consider deism.

I was indoctrinated early and was a believer. It was not until I read the Bible, and found what I found that lead me to where I am now. Which is, if such a God does exist, this God seems quite incoherent; or not even really possible. But because of my upbringing, it was hard to 'let go', due to INDOCTRINATION. I guess the phrase "get 'em while the're young" wasn't lost on me They got me -- hook, line, and sinker... It took decades to completely shake it...

Well, you made your decision.

[Diogenes]

I'm not sure how the topic of evolution intruded here, but there are many Christians who fully accept evolution as the best explanation of the variety of species. They believe that God worked in "mysterious ways, his wonders to behold." I know because I was raised by and among Christians of that sort. They believed in both science and God.
Granted, it seems odd that their God would choose a manner of creation that can be explained without a supreme and guiding intelligence, but the alternative is to either reject God or the facts.
So, many Christians harmonize the two concepts. This approach may be more or less sophisticated than the unjustified, goofy and completely false distinction between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution, but I think it preferable to the "Believe ME, not your own lying eyes" response of those who reject evidence in favor of faith.

But what ya gonna do when you were indoctrinated early in life that "'God' did it all?"

[brunumb]

But what ya gonna do when you were indoctrinated early in life that "'God' did it all?"

Something like this?

[POI]

Ok, gotcha. To answer the question; it would be more so questioning the validity of anything contradicting the Bible.

So it would be our understanding of science that needs to be re-translated, not the Bible.

I then feel compelled to ask you further questions, out of complete curiosity

Where do you stand "scientifically"? Meaning--- Based on the Bible...

... Roughly how old do you think the earth and our universe might be?

... Did a literal flood happen? If so, when? And was this flood local or global?

Perhaps you should consider deism.

I have and do. But if 'deism' is our reality, such a "Being" could be inept (and/or) give a rat's a$$ about us. Heck, this Being could be long gone now... But yea, it would be nice to know.

But apparently, He is either too busy to let us know, these days, of his absolute presence; or does not care. I guess He only cared when there was virtually no way of proving it, 1000's of years ago, and also giving clumsy advice to boot -- (which was re-translated time and time again for centuries)

Or maybe He only reveals Himself in ways which can be mistranslated. (i.e.) How you feel God communicates with you now, where-as I would translate those same feelings/experiences as merely coming from myself alone.

[POI]

I'm not sure how the topic of evolution intruded here, but there are many Christians who fully accept evolution as the best explanation of the variety of species. They believe that God worked in "mysterious ways, his wonders to behold." I know because I was raised by and among Christians of that sort. They believed in both science and God.
Granted, it seems odd that their God would choose a manner of creation that can be explained without a supreme and guiding intelligence, but the alternative is to either reject God or the facts.
So, many Christians harmonize the two concepts. This approach may be more or less sophisticated than the unjustified, goofy and completely false distinction between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution, but I think it preferable to the "Believe ME, not your own lying eyes" response of those who reject evidence in favor of faith.

But what ya gonna do when you were indoctrinated early in life that "'God' did it all?"

I would gather that the ones that cannot reconcile both the topics of A) evolution and B) Christianity then see A) as a threat to their logic. So they wage an attack against A).

Evolution seems to rear it's ugly head in many debates with Christians and doubters; even when this topic was never started. Heck, I have a fundamentalist uncle who brings it up, out of the blue, if he even detects that I raise doubt about his audible religious assertions.

And yea, indoctrination is the key/source to many of these core beliefs. For many, indoctrination is the strong-hold, which keeps them in denial of even their own logic sometimes. It's better not to probe too deep, for fear of one may actually find/discover. And yet, as you mentioned, a smaller percentage are able to completely navigate the two (Evolution and Christianity) in perfect harmony?.?.? ---> Like Kennith Miller (a Roman Catholic) for instance, who gave a post lecture about his involvement in the Dover trial:

[TRANSPONDER]

It's quite remarkable how much evolution -denial pops up in debates. It's an obsession of the Christian apologists - though not all. And as you say, many can accept it as the way god did it. What's hilarious is that Irreducible Complexity only works as an argument that 'macro -evolution' (speciation) is true, because it argues that evolution of organisms so much that they become different can only happen with a god's assistance (of course it doesn't tell us which god so it's a double fail). So while it's an argument to fit Christian evolutionists (evolution is true, but needs God's help to work) Creationists tried to use it to argue that Evolution can't happen - which is not what I/C is arguing.

But anyway. It's like it's an article of faith. It's a piece of sacred Dogma that must be fought for. Like Stem cells and fighting body -part transplants before that. Now quietly dropped. And of course vaccines and masks became a crusaders' rallying cry. It's not like it was a proper argument, and they neither understood these matters nor wanted to, but they were things they had to crusade about in order to prove their faith, I suppose. I can remember the idea of picking a Belief and then fighting for it as self - validation. Even though, after making the acquaintance of rationality (no thanks to the society, government or education system, who still value propaganda and polemics over empiricism and objectivity - though there is a lot of the latter about) I lost the need to hitch feelings of personal self - worth to any particular conclusion, theory or belief, which could go in the bin as soon as a better one came along.

Dogmatists can't do that, and seem doomed to fight the lost cause even when they make it and themselves look absurd.