Christian 'Drop-outs'

[OpenYourEyes]

For Discussion or Debate:
How to prevent Christians from dropping out of the faith?

How to respond to Christians who have already dropped out of the faith?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Just to elaborate on some terms and why I started this thread...
A Christian drop-out stems from the same idea of high school drop-out, in that both groups left something prematurely. The Christian drop-out leaves Christianity usually due to some problem or conflict that they encounter with their belief system and then they give up prematurely. I think most people are accustomed to hearing about and assuming that many atheists leave the faith based on rational reasons but then when I press them I find that many of the key factors that should be considered in the decision are missing. There tends to be a lack of proper understanding of God and the Bible, a lack of familiarity with Christian apologetics, and even on conducting research into their objections. As such, I tend to not spend much time answering their every objection and instead I help lay a foundation for them (in their thinking) where they can find the answers themselves because all the main problem boils down to is a problem dealing with doubt.

One recent example is of a former Christian who drew a negative conclusion about some aspect of Christianity based on an inadequate answer that their professor told them. Apparently, this person considered asking a teacher as being sufficient to deal with their doubt since their response came after my questioning of whatever research they've done on the matter. Ironically, this person dropped out of their class on religion. Notice here no real effort was put in to look for answers either because the person didn't know how and where to look or this person just gave up. This is very common sign/pattern of someone who doesn't know how to deal with doubt.

[JehovahsWitness]

But to put your perspective into practice, clearly Christianity has many denominations.

Well personally I believe that God's purpose was not to have thousands of different denominations, often with conflicting beliefs and teachings. Even many atheists I have met point to this fact as illogical and (in their opinion) evidence that the message itself lacks unifying power.

I base this on the fact that although he could have, the Jesus as depicted in the bible did not choose 12 Apostles, teach them 12 different theologies (albeit with a common basis of Christian love) and send them north, south, east and west to start differing "churches". Rather the bible depicts them staying together, agreeing on certain decisions and sending representatives of those united decisions to the emerging christian groups. The bible book of Acts paints a clear picture of an identifable group, with a name, acting under the authority of those 12 Apostles - 11 of which were personally chosen by Jesus one can reasonably presume for the very purpose of ensuring continuity and unity.

TO CONLUDE logic and biblical principle dictates it was not the purpose of the original followers of Christ to have number of conflicting "denominations" with different names and teachings losely tied by a common ideology but to have one united international body of believers with one name united under some kind of system of leadership of a group of indidivuals working to ensure unity of belief, structure and purpose.

How does that factor into spreading the word?

If having thousands of nominal Christian denominations are not part of the original Christian teaching (and therefore aruably not in line with true Christian ideology), that fact would be be part of "the word" that present day Christians need to be spreading as part of their preaching work.

In what is often referred to as "The Great Commission" the bible portrays Jesus as telling his disciples to go and teach people "all the things I have commanded you". Unity and accuracy of beliefs was a big part of Jesus teaching, so setting people straight about the above would evidently be part of the "teaching" that Jesus wants his present day followers to preach. ie (I'm summarizing the scriptural information, I am not suggeting these words are specifically in the bible). Jesus: "Go and teach people I don't want thousands of different denominations and help them identify which one out of all the thousands, has my backing."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 140 by JehovahsWitness]

I base this on the fact that although he could have, the Jesus as depicted in the bible did not choose 12 Apostles, teach them 12 different theologies albeit with a common basis of Christian love and send them North, South, East and west to start differing "churches". Rather the bible depicts them staying together, agreeing on certain decisions and sending representatives of those united decision to the different groups. The bible book of Acts paints a picture of an identifable group, with a name, acting under the authority of those 12 Apostles - 11 of which were personally chosen by Jesus one can reasonably presume for the very purpose of ensuring continuity and unity.

And yet, through historical documents, we have learned that the early Christian movement was incredibly fragmented from the start. There were Christians who believed, for example, that Jesus was not divine in any way. It was not, as you paint it, a unified movement.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 141 by rikuoamero]

Yes this is true.

My point is not what subsequently happened, my point was what the situation was like at the birth of "Christianity" during the lives of the original Apostles (ie during the first century) and arguably what the original purpose was for that calling.

JW

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

Jesus couldn't stop Judas from "dropping out", I don't think the point of Christianity is to keep everyone, but to keep all sincere hearted people that want to serve God acceptably.


JEHOVAHS WITNESS

Perhaps it's just the opposite though?

Perhaps there is a god that helped man invent all these thousands of religious ideas to find out which humans would be good for goodness sake compared to those that would be good for fear of eternal torture or missing out on some sort of afterlife or what have you.

If you were a god, which soul would you prefer? The one that was good because it is right to be good (in their eyes), or the one that is good out of fear?

I would want the ones that are naturally good, not the ones that only know that murder is wrong (example 1213) because they read it in a book.

Pretend you were going to put a soul in charge of others. Would you place a naturally good person's soul in charge, or one that would hopefully do the right thing because they fear what might happen if they don't?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 143 by Clownboat]

Good point, I should have said "I don't think the point of Christianity is to keep everyone, but to keep all sincere hearted people that want to serve God acceptably out of love and not out of fear". That is what I meant by "acceptably" I should have explained that more fully, thanks for pointing that out.

JW

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 143 by Clownboat]

Good point, I should have said "I don't think the point of Christianity is to keep everyone, but to keep all sincere hearted people that want to serve God acceptably out of love and not out of fear". That is what I meant by "acceptably" I should have explained that more fully, thanks for pointing that out.

JW

Glad I could help.
Will you return the favor and answer the remaining questions? (Bold added)

'If you were a god, which soul would you prefer? The one that was good because it is right to be good (in their eyes), or the one that is good out of fear or love?

I would want the ones that are naturally good, not the ones that only know that murder is wrong (example 1213) because they read it in a book.

Pretend you were going to put a soul in charge of others. Would you place a naturally good person's soul in charge, or one that would hopefully do the right thing because they fear what might happen if they don't?'

Fearing and loving can change. I no longer fear eternal torture in hell and I no longer love my lost pets.
A good person that is just good for goodness sake would be less likely to change because they are just doing what comes naturally to them.

So maybe there is a god out there that created religions just to rule some people out?

So let's go back full circle. Perhaps the point of Christianity is not to keep sincere hearted people in, but to identify those that are only good out of fear or love over a being that cannot be shown to exist. If we are going to take god concepts seriously, then I don't see why this type of god concept should not also be considered (a god concept that is looking for 'naturally' good people).

Is my god concept just as likely as the one you propose? Such a god concepts would explain why man has had religious beliefs for as long as we can trace back.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 140 by JehovahsWitness]

But to put your perspective into practice, clearly Christianity has many denominations.

Well personally I believe that God's purpose was not to have thousands of different denominations, often with conflicting beliefs and teachings. Even many atheists I have met point to this fact as illogical and (in their opinion) evidence that the message itself lacks unifying power.

I can agree with that statement.
I'd love to have a discussion with you about it.

I base this on the fact that although he could have, the Jesus as depicted in the bible did not choose 12 Apostles, teach them 12 different theologies (albeit with a common basis of Christian love) and send them north, south, east and west to start differing "churches". Rather the bible depicts them staying together, agreeing on certain decisions and sending representatives of those united decisions to the emerging christian groups. The bible book of Acts paints a clear picture of an identifable group, with a name, acting under the authority of those 12 Apostles - 11 of which were personally chosen by Jesus one can reasonably presume for the very purpose of ensuring continuity and unity.

But the different opinions that Christians have about that "unified" message belies your statement.

TO CONLUDE logic and biblical principle dictates ...

It's one thing to make a claim, and it's another to prove it's true.
WHAT logic, WHAT "Biblical principle"?

The only thing that we are offered are your opinions.

[KenRU]

JW,

It's one thing to make a claim, and it's another to prove it's true.
WHAT logic, WHAT "Biblical principle"?

The only thing that we are offered are your opinions.

To take it one step further. Why is your opinion any more valid than another Christian's opinion?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 142 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes this is true.

My point is not what subsequently happened, my point was what the situation was like at the birth of "Christianity" during the lives of the original Apostles (ie during the first century) and arguably what the original purpose was for that calling.

JW

Due to the overwhelming amount of splinter groups that comprises Christianity past and present, it seems more likely that the Bible version represents ONE especially well documented and funded group, instead of the only TRUE group. Christianity was and still is incredibly fluid. Most adherents want to believe that their splinter group is the ONE true Christian cult, and that all the rest are just wrongo.

But there is no reason to believe that.