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.

[OpenYourEyes]

I reject the notion that folks'd drop out of school "prematurely", as if they rejected education. That former Christians no longer play along with goofy, unfounded beliefs is a problem for the Christian who can't show he speaks truth.

When certain atheists keep raising objections that inaccurately portrays Christianity then I can only presume that they lack an understanding of Christianity, philosophy, and science. Also, it's likely that this misunderstanding existed before they left Christianity and influenced their decision.

For example, lets take your request of truth confirmation for Christian beliefs which is built on faulty expectations. The Bible contains biographies, history, ordinary and extraordinary experiences, non-literal genres, etc. Just how do you expect all of these aspects to be proven true? Do you expect that for all ancient writings? How can science deal with these matters? Isn't religion/experience necessary for the areas of reality where science is not adequate?

You see a lot of times it's seen as a virtue by skeptics to always request scientific or empirical verification, but in reality it's unreasonable when you consider the factors or questions that I brought up.

[Elijah John]

I reject the notion that folks'd drop out of school "prematurely", as if they rejected education. That former Christians no longer play along with goofy, unfounded beliefs is a problem for the Christian who can't show he speaks truth.

When certain atheists keep raising objections that inaccurately portrays Christianity then I can only presume that they lack an understanding of Christianity, philosophy, and science. Also, it's likely that this misunderstanding existed before they left Christianity and influenced their decision.

For example, lets take your request of truth confirmation for Christian beliefs which is built on faulty expectations. The Bible contains biographies, history, ordinary and extraordinary experiences, non-literal genres, etc. Just how do you expect all of these aspects to be proven true? Do you expect that for all ancient writings? How can science deal with these matters? Isn't religion/experience necessary for the areas of reality where science is not adequate?

You see a lot of times it's seen as a virtue by skeptics to always request scientific or empirical verification, but in reality it's unreasonable when you consider the factors or questions that I brought up.

There are good reasons for questioning and even rejecting conventional Christianity other than "misunderstandings" of the teachings of the Bible, the Church or historical and literary context.

What evidence outside of "the Bible tells me so", for example is there to support the Church claim that "Jesus is God"? Even the Bible is contradictory on that matter alone, not to mention many others.

And hadn't we ought to establish first that the Bible is infallible and inerrant? And the Church?

Is there any evidence at all, for example, from science or cultural or archelological history to prove, in fact that "Jesus is God"?

And when a person starts questioning that notion, and does further investigation, and finds that even the Bible never says those three plain words that "Jesus is God" nor does it even ever have Jesus saying "I am God", can one be fairly blamed for becoming a "drop-out" from orthodoxy, if not from Christianity entirely?

Not to mention when one considers the other manifold errors and contradictions in the Bible, and even Church variance from the Bible?

Whether one can still retain one's theism, (as a Deist, a Christian heretic, a Jew, Muslim or in some other manner) or goes all the way into the arms of atheism is another matter.

[Divine Insight]

When certain atheists keep raising objections that inaccurately portrays Christianity then I can only presume that they lack an understanding of Christianity, philosophy, and science. Also, it's likely that this misunderstanding existed before they left Christianity and influenced their decision.

What constitutes an inaccurate portrayal of Christianity?

Christianity itself is a hodgepodge of disagreeing sects and denominations. Even the Christian Apologists can't agree with each other or convince each other. In short, there doesn't even exists a convincing Christianity. Catholicism and Protestantism reject each other, and the Protestants themselves consist of a myriad of disagreeing apologists/theologians.

The true wonder is why anyone actually believes in this religion at all.

The idea that there even exists a consistent and understandable Christian theology is seriously a joke.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6:

When certain atheists keep raising objections that inaccurately portrays Christianity then I can only presume that they lack an understanding of Christianity, philosophy, and science. Also, it's likely that this misunderstanding existed before they left Christianity and influenced their decision.

There ya go - attack, slander, slur, and libel anyone who rejects your stupid arguments.

For example, lets take your request of truth confirmation for Christian beliefs which is built on faulty expectations.

It is indeed faulty to expect the Christian to ever show he speaks truth.

The Bible contains biographies, history, ordinary and extraordinary experiences, non-literal genres, etc. Just how do you expect all of these aspects to be proven true?

I don't expect 'em to be proven true. I expect the honorable debater to not lie to us.

Do you expect that for all ancient writings? How can science deal with these matters? Isn't religion/experience necessary for the areas of reality where science is not adequate?

I expect the claimant to show he speaks truth - regardless of how upset some claimants get when asked to show they speak truth.

You see a lot of times it's seen as a virtue by skeptics to always request scientific or empirical verification, but in reality it's unreasonable when you consider the factors or questions that I brought up.

"It's unreasponable to expect me to show I speak truth, considering how much of it is I can't".

Excuses for a lack of evidence are the pitiful arguments of the pitiful.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 8:

What constitutes an inaccurate portrayal of Christianity?

Science.

[H.sapiens]

I reject the notion that folks'd drop out of school "prematurely", as if they rejected education. That former Christians no longer play along with goofy, unfounded beliefs is a problem for the Christian who can't show he speaks truth.

When certain atheists keep raising objections that inaccurately portrays Christianity then I can only presume that they lack an understanding of Christianity, philosophy, and science. Also, it's likely that this misunderstanding existed before they left Christianity and influenced their decision.

For example, lets take your request of truth confirmation for Christian beliefs which is built on faulty expectations. The Bible contains biographies, history, ordinary and extraordinary experiences, non-literal genres, etc. Just how do you expect all of these aspects to be proven true? Do you expect that for all ancient writings? How can science deal with these matters? Isn't religion/experience necessary for the areas of reality where science is not adequate?

You see a lot of times it's seen as a virtue by skeptics to always request scientific or empirical verification, but in reality it's unreasonable when you consider the factors or questions that I brought up.

Hmm ... human parthenogenesis and flying zombies ... I wonder why people keep misunderstanding.

[Divine Insight]

For example, lets take your request of truth confirmation for Christian beliefs which is built on faulty expectations. The Bible contains biographies, history, ordinary and extraordinary experiences, non-literal genres, etc. Just how do you expect all of these aspects to be proven true?

I don't expect them to be proven to be true. All I need to do is recognize that they aren't even sensible at all. I have serious problems with the story of the "Fall from Grace" and it doesn't make any sense to me at all that any all-wise super-intelligent entity could be as utterly clueless and ignorant to behave as the God depicted in these ancient barbaric fables. To the contrary, the behavior of the God in these fables appears to be precisely as ignorant and unwise as the barbarians who wrote these stories. Thus providing me with evidence that the Bible was indeed written by ignorant barbarians, and not some all-wise God.

Do you expect that for all ancient writings?

All ancient writings don't claim to be speaking for a supposedly all-wise God whilst making extremely ignorant accusations and claims about this supposedly all-wise God.

How can science deal with these matters? Isn't religion/experience necessary for the areas of reality where science is not adequate?

No, religion is not necessary and many atheists have already proven this to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt.

You see a lot of times it's seen as a virtue by skeptics to always request scientific or empirical verification, but in reality it's unreasonable when you consider the factors or questions that I brought up.

I personally don't require or ask for scientific evidence for the Bible. To the contrary we already have scientific evidence that the Bible is necessarily false in all of it's claims. So science has already proven the Bible to be false claims.

However, on top of the scientific evidence that the Bible is false, I can also clearly see that it necessarily has to be false because it portrays a supposedly all-wise, super-intelligent and supposedly benevolent entity to behave in totally unwise, and ignorant ways that are far from benevolent. So even if I didn't have the scientific evidence that the Bible is false, I would still need to reject it on the obvious grounds that no intelligent super-entity could be as stupid as the Bible requires.

The fallacy of the Bible is, IMHO, 100% certain.

Some people will argue that we can't know anything with 100% certainty, but I hold that this itself is a misguided and false notion. We can indeed know that with 100% certainty there there cannot be a whole number solution to the square root of 2. And as far as I can see, the Bible has proven itself to be necessarily false to that same level of certainty. It simply cannot be true verbatim as written. And even Christian apologists and theologians openly confess to this. Only extreme fundamentalists like Ken Ham believe that the Bible is 100% infallible and true verbatim as written literally.

But the vast majority of Christian theologians and apologists have already given up on trying to hold that position as being anywhere near reasonable.

[OpenYourEyes]

There are good reasons for questioning and even rejecting conventional Christianity other than "misunderstandings" of the teachings of the Bible, the Church or historical and literary context.

I know since the 1800s, a school of thought referred to as 'liberal theology' has sought to eliminate some of the fundamental/traditional interpretations of the Bible but I don't see one school of thought (liberal vs traditional/fundamentalist) being any better than the other inherently. I would only judge on a case-by-case basis based on the best biblical exegesis for a particular passage.

What evidence outside of "the Bible tells me so", for example is there to support the Church claim that "Jesus is God"? Even the Bible is contradictory on that matter alone, not to mention many others.

And hadn't we ought to establish first that the Bible is infallible and inerrant? And the Church?

Is there any evidence at all, for example, from science or cultural or archelological history to prove, in fact that "Jesus is God"?

And when a person starts questioning that notion, and does further investigation, and finds that even the Bible never says those three plain words that "Jesus is God" nor does it even ever have Jesus saying "I am God", can one be fairly blamed for becoming a "drop-out" from orthodoxy, if not from Christianity entirely?

Not to mention when one considers the other manifold errors and contradictions in the Bible, and even Church variance from the Bible?

Whether one can still retain one's theism, (as a Deist, a Christian heretic, a Jew, Muslim or in some other manner) or goes all the way into the arms of atheism is another matter.[/quote]

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

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.

Actually no, that answer my teacher gave me was NOT a factor in my leaving the religion. Perhaps next time you can ask?

Ironically, this person dropped out of their class on religion.

Now where have I EVER said I was a drop out of classes? I dropped the RELIGION, but not my academic classes.
The one topic that I didn't press my teacher on, at the time, was why no female priests in Roman Catholicism.
This is not me saying that I simply never talked with my teacher about any other aspect of Christianity.

I expect an apology on this, because you made it seem like I was a person who dropped classes, when in fact, I never have.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 6 by OpenYourEyes]

The Bible contains biographies, history, ordinary and extraordinary experiences, non-literal genres, etc. Just how do you expect all of these aspects to be proven true? Do you expect that for all ancient writings? How can science deal with these matters? Isn't religion/experience necessary for the areas of reality where science is not adequate?

You see a lot of times it's seen as a virtue by skeptics to always request scientific or empirical verification, but in reality it's unreasonable when you consider the factors or questions that I brought up.

When I encounter these sections of the Bible that we simply cannot verify, I realize that I cannot justify having a positive belief that they are true. What evidence is provided that would justify my believing that Satan did have a bet with God over Job, that horns were used to blow down a city's walls, that Jacob wrestled with God?