Saturday, November 07, 2009 Last Update:12:05 pm ET

Ministries|Mon, Jun. 29 2009 05:08 PM EDT

Survey: Churches Losing Youths Long Before College

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

The Bible calls the Church "the Body of Christ." Today, that body is bleeding profusely, says a Christian author and sought-out speaker.

"The next generation of believers is draining from the churches, and it causes me great personal and professional concern," said Ken Ham, founder and president of Answers in Genesis and a Young Earth creationist.

Hoping to shed light on what he believes is a monumental problem, Ham enlisted the services of America's Research Group to study why young people were leaving. The results, published in Already Gone, will shake many churches to their very core, Ham states in the new book.

While previous surveys have shown that Christian students tend to quit church during their college years, the data collected by ARG found that most of them were already gone in middle school and high school.

According to ARG's survey, 95 percent of 20- to 29-year-old evangelicals attended church regularly during their elementary and middle school years. Only 55 percent went to church during high school. And by college, only 11 percent were still attending church.

"They're sitting in our churches right now ... and they're already gone," Ham said during a "State of the Nation" address last week.

Delving deeper into some of the reasons for the exodus, the research group found that nearly 40 percent of the surveyed twentysomethings first had doubts about the Bible in middle school. Another 43.7 percent said they first doubted that all of the accounts and stories in the Bible are true during their high school years. Only around 10 percent said they first became doubtful about the Bible accounts during college.

Among those who said they do not believe all the biblical accounts are true, the top reasons they gave for doubting the scriptures were: "it was written by men" (24 percent), "it was not translated correctly" (18 percent), "the Bible contradicts itself" (15 percent), and "science shows the world is old" (14 percent).

In an even more alarming finding, attending Sunday school proved to be of no help in strengthening a young person's faith. In fact, the survey revealed that Sunday school is actually more likely to be detrimental to the spiritual and moral health of children.

Recognizing that such data may not sit well with many Christians, Ham encouraged believers to consider the research before reacting.

He stressed, "We're not advocating getting rid of Sunday schools." Instead, we're advocating a revolution of them, he added.

Sixty-one percent of the surveyed young adults said they attended Sunday school while 39 percent said they didn't. When comparing the two groups, the survey revealed that those who attended Sunday school are actually more likely: not to believe that all the accounts and stories in the Bible are true, to doubt the Bible because it was written by men, to defend keeping abortion legal, to accept the legalization of gay marriage, to believe in evolution, and to believe that good people don't need to go to church.

Part of the problem, Ham pointed out, is the curriculum. While Sunday school teachers teach "Bible stories," children are left to learn biology, anthropology, geology, astronomy and other science courses at public schools.

By merely calling it Bible "stories," churches end up communicating the biblical accounts as "fairytales" rather than history, Ham noted. Continue >>

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
  • Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    In only one sense can you be right: if religion has no contact with reality whatsoever, if it is stripped of any doctrines that relate to the real world, then indeed science will never succeed in confirming or denying its claims. Very few religions have been willing to be so self-limiting.
    -----------------
    Sildenafil blog

  • Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:33 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    Kudos to the YEC crazies for highlighting exactly why no-one should take the Bible seriously. Keep up the good work guys!

  • Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Immanuel means God with us

  • Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jesus could not have faked it

    There is a great deal about the life of Jesus that was prophesied hundreds and even thousands of years before his birth. And Jesus fulfilled these prophesies. Had Jesus been a mere man, it would have been impossible for him to manufacture compliance with many of the prophecies about him.

    The Virgin Birth is foretold in prophesy

    ISAIAH 7:14 So, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel. (Immanuel in Hebrew means, â

  • Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    His linage was prophesied, his city of birth was prophesied, even the time of his birth was prophesied in the writings of Moses. (But that's too long to get into here.) Jesus could not have controlled all of these aspects of his life.

    And if God can create the entire universe and can take the dust of the earth and make a live human being out it, why is it hard to believe that He could cause a virgin have a son?

    The Death of Jesus is foretold in prophesy

    ISAIAH 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare His generation? For He was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of My people He was stricken.

    ISAIAH 53:9 And He put His grave with the wicked, and with a rich one in His death; although He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth.

    He was judged by Pilot, he was in prison, he had no children, he died on the cross between two thieves (with the wicked), his corps was laid in a rich man's tomb, even though he had done no violence. This ancient prophecy explains many well known truths about the death of Jesus Christ. How could anyone know about this hundreds of years before it happened? Only God, who knows the end from the beginning, could have prophesied with perfect accuracy, the life and death of Jesus Christ.

    As the Roman guard said when Jesus died, "Truly, he was the Son of God." Matthew 27:54

  • Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    (Immanuel in Hebrew means; â

  • Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    u4eeeahhh wrote:
    >Virgin birth story makes Mary the Queen of bs excuse givers.
    >She gets knocked up playing around behind Joe's back and when caught she says, GOD DID IT.

    In fairness to Mary and ol' Joe, we should point out that the Virgin Birth story was almost assuredly not due to either of them.

    Think about it: suppose that she had told this story to her dear little boy, and, when Jesus grew up, he passed it on to his pals.

    How would the pals have reacted?

    Do you yourself know any adult male, who, when told by a pal that his mother had conceived him out of wedlock, but -- wait! it wasn't what you think! it was a Virgin Birth! -- could avoid laughing?

    I really, really doubt that Mary and Joe were dumb enough to have tried to palm off that story on young Jesus. I am extremely doubtful that an adult Jesus would have been naive enough to try to sell that to his pals.

    And, if he had, it is impossible for me to believe that a bunch of adult guys -- remember, these were ordinary working guys, fishermen, etc. -- would have swallowed a whopper like that.

    No, the Virgin Birth story was not peddled by Mary, Joe, or Jesus himself. It was invented long after his death, when an aura of sanctity had come to surround him, and when he didn't have to tell the story himself and watch his pals snicker.

    Most likely, some Greek-speaking gentile convert misunderstood the term "Son of God" to refer to a literal biological son of God, combined this misunderstanding with the pagan myths about Zeus begetting children via mortals, and -- voila! -- produced the Virgin Birth story.

    This scenario is backed up by the fact that Paul's letters, the earliest Christian documents we have, make no mention of the Virgin Birth; neither do two of the four Gospels nor any other New Testament books besides Matthew and Luke. And we also know there were early Christians (e.g., the Ebionites) who did not believe in a Virgin Birth.

    No, Mary may not have been the "Mother of God," but there is no reason to foist this lie on her. There is no reason to doubt that she married her husband and conceived her son after the marriage, so that everything about Jesus' birth was completely, um, kosher.

    Dave

  • Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    u4eeeahhh wrote:
    >Virgin birth story makes Mary the Queen of bs excuse givers.
    >She gets knocked up playing around behind Joe's back and when caught she says, GOD DID IT.

    In fairness to Mary and ol' Joe, we should point out that the Virgin Birth story was almost assuredly not due to either of them.

    Think about it: suppose that she had told this story to her dear little boy, and, when Jesus grew up, he passed it on to his pals.

    How would the pals have reacted?

    Do you yourself know any adult male, who, when told by a pal that his mother had conceived him out of wedlock, but -- wait! it wasnâ

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    u4eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah,

    speaking of excuses...were you an umplanned birth, or did your mom get pregnant with you so that she could get more money from welfare?

  • Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Virgin birth story makes Mary the Queen of bs excuse givers. She gets knocked up playing around behind Joe's back and when caught she says, GOD DID IT. Joe must also hold the record for history's most gullible husband. We pretty much know for sure that it takes two to tango, does now and it did then. hide

  • Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Rachel777 wrote to me:
    >>[Dave] ''A similar point applies to the Virgin Birth, if taken literally.''
    >[Rachel]Why can we not take the virgin birth literally?
    >Are you saying that Almighty God can not perform this?

    Rachel, I think that "Almighty God" (by whom I presume you mean the Yahweh of the Old Testament) is a myth just like other "gods" invented in roughly the same time period -- Zeus, Wotan, etc.

    However, the broader issue, even if we consider it an open question whether or not Yahweh exists, is: shall we apply the same standard to judging the miracles of Yahweh that we apply to judging the miracles of, say, Zeus.

    As the old saying goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

    If Zeus really existed, he could have fathered Heracles of a mortal woman, and his doing so would prove his existence. Same is true of Yahweh.

    But the reason you and I and most people do not accept the claim about Zeus and Heracles is that this is (and is meant to be!) an extraordinarily unusual claim: we therefore require extraordinarily strong evidence, which we do not have.

    Again, the same applies to Yahweh: we do not have strong evidence for the Virgin Birth (Matthew and Luke contradict each other on various points, and no other New Testament book addresses the issue at all).

    So, since science explains that human virgin females cannot give birth to male young, and since we lack evidence that this happened with Mary and Jesus, that is just as much proof that it never happened as the proof that Zeus did not father Heracles.

    I'm just applying the same standards of judgment to both issues. Fair is fair.

    I agree with you that, if not taken literally, there is not much point to the Virgin Birth story. However, there are some people who, for some reason that escapes me, choose to call themselves Christians and who disagree with you and me on that.

    Dave

  • Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    LOL. Those are some amusing fairytales about mass. Works dictate your reward in heaven, not going to mass. A person who goes to mass every week but yet remains a adulterer is going to have a bigger reward than the one that goes to mass twice a year and is a model Christian? I have met Catholics who go to mass every week that are one step removed from satan.

    The lies and fallacies of the Catholic church are naseating. They focus so much on the temporal, materialistic things and ignore the spiritual. They are carnal Christians, practicing an immature carnal Christianity. Unfortunately, because of that, they are easily swayed and have fallen after doctrines of demons.
    But those who mature in Christ and walk in the Spirit will be able to rightly divide lies from truth.

  • Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:32 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Dan,

    I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on these issues; however, your post lacks biblical support. The Scriptures emphatically declare that Jesus was sacrificed ONCE and there is no need for a DAILY sacrifice . . .

    Who needeth NOT DAILY, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did ONCE, when he offered up himself (Hebrews 7:27).

    Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in ONCE into the holy place, having OBTAINED (past tense) eternal redemption for us (Hebrews 9:12).

    For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to PUT AWAY sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26).

    By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all (Hebrews 10:10).

    For Christ also hath ONCE suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18).

  • Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    " why people are kept in bondage"

    Beginning to talk like Prophet which makes you the least credible person on the site.

    Yes please save us and untie our bonds...

    More ignorance...Catholics do not refer to their Church, the Church of the New Testament as "Holy Mother Church," for nothing.
    For the Eucharist alone I would be no other faith.

  • Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    PART II
    -He supplies for many of our negligences and ommisions.
    -He forgives the venial sins which we have not confessed. The power over Satan over us is diminished.
    -Hearing Mass affords the souls in purgatory the greatest possible relief.
    -One Mass heard during one's life will be of more benefit to one than many heard after one's death.
    One is preserved from dangers and misfortunes which otherwise might have befallen us. One shortens one's time in purgatory.
    -Every Mass heard wins a higher degree of glory in heaven.
    -One receives the priest's blessing which Our Lord ratifies in Heaven.
    -At Mass we kneel amidst a multitude of holy angels who are present at the adorable Sacrifice with reverential awe.
    -We are blessed in our temporal goods and affairs.

  • Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    PART I "Actually, when I was a former Catholic the mass was still being spoken in Latin . . . like that really edified anyone.

    Yes, you and Believer all claim to be "former Catholics," strange you know nothing about the Catholic faith - you only speak things you can make up...like your post here... if you knew anything you would know Jesus' Mass is said "to God--not to man," so what you are saying is that God does not understand Latin (talk about ignorance) It is not "edification," the Mass is a sacrifice of praise to God: The Mass:
    The Mass is Calvary continued.
    -Every Mass is worth as much as the Sacrifice of Our Lord's life, suffering and death.
    -Holy Mass is the most powerful atonement for our sins
    -At the hour of death, the Masses one has heard will be our greatest consolation.
    -Every Mass will go with us to judgment and plead for pardon.
    -At Mass, one can diminish more or less termporal punishment due for sins, according to one's fervor.
    -Assisting devoutly at Holy Mass, one renders to the sacred Humanity of our Lord the greatest homage.
    -He supplies for many of our negligences and ommisions.
    -He forgives the venial sins which we have not confessed. The power over Satan over us is diminished.
    -Hearing Mass affords the souls in purgatory the greatest possible relief.
    -One Mass heard during one's life will be of more benefit to one than many heard after one's death.
    One is preserved from dangers and misfortunes which otherwise might have befallen us. One shortens one's time in purgatory.
    -Every Mass heard wins a higher degree of glory in heaven.
    -One receives the priest's blessing which Our Lord ratifies in Heaven.
    -At Mass we kneel amidst a multitude of holy angels who are present at the adorable Sacrifice with reverential awe.
    -We are blessed in our temporal goods and affairs.

  • Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:26 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    (More nonsense. A lot of "former" Catholics on this site who knew and know nothing of their "supposed faith." Jesus is God and knows all things, past, present, and future...you are saying God (as the second person of the Blessed Trinity "is dumb" and created a Catholic (His Universal Church) that could go wrong after promising He will be with us to the end of times)

    What has been shared is the Word of God my friend not the traditions of men which contradict the Scriptures and claiming that the Catholic Church is the same New Testament Church recorded in Scripture demonstrates a lack of biblical and historical knowledge.

    (This is the epitome of being "uniquely ignorant." If you were a "former Catholic" you would know that Scripture is read at every Mass, e.g. the readings of St. Paul, and the Gospel each morning and on Sundays (by the way established by the Pope who changed it from Saturdays to Sundays which you follow today [including the Gregorian calendar] Catholics "do not "Bible joust" with Scripture because Sola Scriptura (everyone's individual interpretation of Bible verses) renders the Bible useless and can be seen on this site when each comes up with their own Holy Spirit, and then say, "Oh, well. We differ so we'll just "love each other." Yah, the the Holy Spirit is "meaningless." Not to Catholics He isn't.)

    Actually, when I was a former Catholic the mass was still being spoken in Latin . . . like that really edified anyone. Yes, a passage of scripture or two was read and that was all . . . We were told not to read the bible unless instructed by a priest; looking back, some priests did not know the bible as well as they should have.

    Yes; I am aware that Rome changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday . . . this is no surprise, the prophet Daniel foretold this (the changing of times and laws); I do not worship on Sunday. Also, you say that we here on this post make the bible useless but being unable to give a sound alternative biblical explanation to specific bible passages does not substantiate your claims.

    Sorry, I have personally heard the words that if anyone leaves the Catholic Church (which is not the New Testament Church) they will be lost . . . this is a lie and one of the reasons why people are kept in bondage. To also say that the Catholic Church is based upon the teachings of Jesus and the bible is sorrowfully untrue! Finally, Catholics did not write the Bible . . . please, do some more research . . .

  • Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:50 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    dan wrote:

    "Who were these mysterious people?"

    Who cares? Turn off the bubble machine. God is still in charge.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    These mysterious people were/are the Nicolaitans God spoke of in Rev, 2:6

    Who cares? GOd sure cares.

    "Turn off the bubble machine" -- who is making the bubbles?

    God is still in charge. ---- That is why we need to make sure to heed GOd's WOrd not to do the works of Niclaitans, He hates them.


    Is GOD in charge of you so that you will heed His word and not do the works of the Nicolaitans?


    :O)

  • Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:13 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    dan, not totally sure where rachel was coming from with regards to vain repitition, but to repeat a prayer over and over such as the rosary is an excellent example of vain repitition, where the prayers become nothing but words with no thought put into them.

  • Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "''Roman Catholics use the correct version of the Lord's prayer in their Bibles.''

    Use the correct version, so you repeat it?

    If so, that is not the point.

    The Lord Jesus was showing how to pray, as in to the Father, in heaven, giving him praise first and so on....

    It's not to be repeated, the Lord warned of vain repetitions, and that is what you would be doing by repeating this prayer. "

    Now on this point Rachel has sprung a leak. Carrying this "Woman's logic" to its ridiculous conclusion ... a prayer could only be said once."

    This is what happens when one takes the Bible "literally."

  • Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "''A similar point applies to the Virgin Birth, if taken literally.''

    Why can we not take the virgin birth literally?

    Are you saying that Almighty God can not perform this?"

    Not me. This is precisely my point. Protestants are always "limiting" what God can and cannot do./1 Catholics, Byzantines, and Orthodox believe that God is all Powerful (he can do anything He wants, and He has), all Knowing (past present and future) and all Loving (the God of Mercy; however He is all Just, too) and these attributes need to be balanced off because He IS.

    /1 This is not necessarity evil; however, it is because they all insist on "individual interpretations" of the Bible so they necessarily end up with crazy guesses and are fixated on these. This is why Sola Scriptura is foreign to the first Christians (there was not complete Bible until the 4th century when the Catholic Church affirmed it at the Councils.

  • Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "dan, I was speaking to the people who actually penned the Word of God which may have included women, surely you've heard of stenographers!! "

    I'm afraid you got me on this one (partially anyway since I have not found it affirmed in either Biblically or traditionally; but I'll give it to you on the basis when I went to prove it was not so--it does say it stems from the Romans (I would have guessed the "machine age.")

    But since I am a writer, I also know that "writers originate" and stenos take "Richardtation" (I cannot use the correct word here because I will be 'warned against using such bad language)

  • Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Who were these mysterious people?"

    Who cares? Turn off the bubble machine. God is still in charge.

  • Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I just want to share what God has beed teaching me.... :O)


    God bless!



    ******** Rev 2:6 "Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."******

    (that thing which God hates - "Lords over God's heritage')

    Why does God HATE the practices of the Nicolaitans?
    Who were these mysterious people?
    http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why-does-god-hate-practices-of-the-nicolaitans.html


    --------------------------------------------------------


    **********"But I have this against you, that you let the woman Jezebel say she is a prophet [claiming to be inspired] and give false teaching, making my servants go after the desires of the flesh and take food offered to false gods." (Rev 2:20)***************

    Jezebel, in our society
    http://www.albatrus.org/english/church-order/women-matters/jezebel_in_our_society.htm
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    ********Rev 2:24 'But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them -- I place no other burden on you.' **************

    The Person, Work, and Present Status of Satan
    By Dr. Greg Bahnsen
    http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt015.htm

    --------------------------------------------------------

  • Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    dan, and once again more roman catholic propaganda, so let me ask you a very simple question, do you believe God's Word is the foundation for all truth and when something is proclaimed as truth contradicts, violates, and/or supersedes the Word of God that what has been proclaimed as truth is not truth?

  • Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dan, I was speaking to the people who actually penned the Word of God which may have included women, surely you've heard of stenographers!!

  • Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ''A similar point applies to the Virgin Birth, if taken literally.''

    Why can we not take the virgin birth literally?

    Are you saying that Almighty God can not perform this?

  • Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:33 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    ''Roman Catholics use the correct version of the Lord's prayer in their Bibles.''

    Use the correct version, so you repeat it?

    If so, that is not the point.

    The Lord Jesus was showing how to pray, as in to the Father, in heaven, giving him praise first and so on....

    It's not to be repeated, the Lord warned of vain repetitions, and that is what you would be doing by repeating this prayer.

  • Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:33 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    abhodim wrote:
    > Science is at best neutral in areas of religion. It has no apparatus to detect the supernatural or miraculous.

    I'm afraid that that statement is obviously and unequivocally false.

    Quite a few religions over the centuries have made very firm pronouncements about a whole slew of matters, a few of which you and I have just discussed, upon which science emphatically differs quite dramatically with religion.

    Again, to take the obvious: everyone knows that some people's religion demands that Genesis 1 be literally true. Everyone knows that established, mainstream science disagrees.

    Perhaps, *your* religious beliefs do not require a literalist view of Genesis 1. But some people's do, and science differs with them. On this matter, science is most assuredly not "neutral."

    And, indeed, no one can ever show that science "has no apparatus to detect the supernatural or miraculous" unless they so restrict the content of religion as to make it effectively pointless.

    For example, if Jesus really did physically rise from the dead, then surely common scientific instruments such as EEGs, EKGs, even the common stethoscope, would have been able to detect this. Perhaps not so coincidentally, his supposed Resurrection happened before such instruments existed!

    If religion has anything to do with the real world, then some of its claims will inevitably be detectable in principle with scientific apparatus.

    In only one sense can you be right: if religion has no contact with reality whatsoever, if it is stripped of any doctrines that relate to the real world, then indeed science will never succeed in confirming or denying its claims. Very few religions have been willing to be so self-limiting.

    You also wrote:
    > There. We both have made our Pascalian wagers. Let us depart in peace and live and let live.

    Sorry, but that too is in error: I have never been inclined to engage in any sort of Pascalian wager. I do not hold beliefs on the basis of some pragmatic calculation of what I think will benefit me.

    Rather, I adhere to Clifford's principle:
    > It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
    William Kingdon Clifford, The Ethics of Belief (http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm#ethics)

    In accord with Clifford's principle, I have concluded that there is more than sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion, based on science, as to the truth of traditional Nicene Christianity: traditional Nicene Christianity is demonstrably and certainly, on the basis of firmly established science, beyond any reasonable doubt, false.

    That really is one of the reasons you folks are losing so many intelligent young people. Ken Ham, for all his faults (and they are many!), is perceptive enough to grasp this.

    Dave

  • Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:20 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    abhodim wrote to me:
    > Your Mt. Olympus reference sounds much like the early Russian cosmonauts declaring not seeing God during their voyages.

    Yes, and the Russian cosmonauts did indeed refute that version of Christianity that envisions God and Heaven as being up in the sky just a bit above the earth -- I have actually known people who did believe that.

    Although, to tell the truth, I am pretty sure the cosmonauts were simply making a joke.

    And my Mt. Olympus reference similarly does show that naive Greek paganism was false -- of course, intelligent Greeks knew that anyway.

    The point is that at least *some* religious beliefs are indeed demonstrably false.

    Similarly, modern physics, biology, astronomy, and geology prove that the first chapter of Genesis, if taken literally, is false.

    I realize that that does not refute the beliefs of all Christians, some of whom take Genesis metaphorically.

    But it does refute the beliefs of *some* Christians, and quite decisively so.

    A similar point applies to the Virgin Birth, if taken literally.

    You also wrote:
    > Are you acquainted with C.S. Lewis' book of essays Christian Reflections? In his last essay, the Seeing Eye, he addresses such scientific expressions of atheism, questioning their validity.
    " climb to the top of Mt. Olympus and you will find no Gods up there." Dandy, St. Paul climbed to the top of the Areopagus (Acts 17: 16ff) and made the same point, clearing the arena for the One true God.

    I've read a lot of Lewis: I don't recall if I've read that specific essay, though it may well be that that is indeed where I got my point about Mt. Olympus.

    Dave

  • Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer "...and possibly women ??

    Yes--right...like Scripture according to ahh, let's say Hilda. Just as good as the other stuff.

  • Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Re: The Lord's Prayer King James Version

    "New Epistles" Kevin Sam, has some interesting comments from Protestants who want the "truth" affirmed (not buried with "innerant")

    ...it's simple enough if its not in the Bible don't slip it in there. This seems simple enough.

    ...since this is not Jesus Words don't confuse people by putting it in there. Roman Catholics use the correct version of the Lord's prayer in their Bibles.

    we need to be sure of a prayer's origins and not confuse people by asserting it was said by Jesus.

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer: (to me) "you don't see it (the Bible) as the foundation for all truth..."

    ...that Believer's translations are true and reliable? Scripture please (this is fun)

    You have eyes yet you do not see; ears yet you do not hear, a nose that smells not... dan 28:31

    The Catholic Church has always taught that the Bible is true in matters of faith and morals...and I have said many times I believe that...what I don't believe is your conforming the Bible to your "preconceived errors [ideas]" in translations...how do I know? - because another so called "perfect knowledge" person of the Scripture comes along, says the opposite of what you say...and you both turn the other way, always "in love" of course, and never addressing the issue just looking the other way. The Holy Spirit is God (the 3rd Person of the Blessed Trinity; the Love that exists between the Father and the Son) and cannot make basic mistakes which any novice in Logic 101 can see.

    On the error in the St James version of the bible:

    If the blind lead the blind both will fall into the pit...

    Now this is from an Evangelical who "seeks" the truth and "tells" the truth, unlike you, he does not use the "ostrich" technique when he sees and "untruth."
    His appeal (based on a question answered by him):

    Why do we pray the Lordâ

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    dan, once again more roman catholic propaganda since the reality is that every truly born-again believer becomes a member of God's Universal Church the moment they are saved regardless of their deonmination to include your denomination the roman catholic church. And roman catholics did not write to original autographs of the Bible they were written by men and possibly women who were superintended by God's Holy Spirit so there would be no errors in their writings. Plus, why would you want to give credit to roman catholics for the writing of the Bible when you don't see it as the foundation for all truth.

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Part II
    This is the epitome of being "uniquely ignorant." If you were a "former Catholic" you would know that Scripture is read at every Mass, e.g. the readings of St. Paul, and the Gospel each morning and on Sundays (by the way established by the Pope who changed it from Saturdays to Sundays which you follow today [including the Gregorian calendar] Catholics "do not "Bible joust" with Scripture because Sola Scriptura (everyone's individual interpretation of Bible verses) renders the Bible useless and can be seen on this site when each comes up with their own Holy Spirit, and then say, "Oh, well. We differ so we'll just "love each other." Yah, the the Holy Spirit is "meaningless." Not to Catholics He isn't.

    Catholics who do not agree with the Magisterim are not "Catholics at all," [CINOs] and have fallen away from Jesus' Church (they just don't know it yet) Having known several thousand Catholics I have never heard of one (this is a laugher) of being "afraid of being "excommunicated."
    Our "unity" is based on the teachings of Jesus' Christ in the Bible (not mangled "interpretations"); Holy Tradition (denying history is illogical, e.g., the Fathers of the Church; the "grafitti on the Catacombs wall's" e.g., prayers for the dead, for example or the reception of Jesus Body and Bloos at Mass); and this unity was "affirmed by all Christians in the Nicene Creed as the true Church having these 4 Marks -(One-the Unity) Holy (the Eucharist) Catholic (Greek for Universal) and Apostolic (stems directly from the Peter and the Apostles)
    Of the two classical creeds, the Apostles' Creed belongs in its essential content to the apostolic age, and are accepted by Catholics and many Protestants.
    The Nicene Creed is used by Catholics, many Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox; the last, however, reject the Filioque clause.
    Lastly, Catholics wrote the Bible, and preserved it throughout the centuries in the monasteries painstakingly writing it by hand ... Protestants are so far from the "early" age (1517 years away) that what many have today are "guessing contests." They never had a Bible until the printing press released the first version for them including an "error" in their "innerant" Bible: "For Thine is the kingddom and the power, and the glory (even changing Jesus' own Words) so much for "Rome's distorting anything)

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Part I

    "The Church is the arbiter of truth ONLY when it correctly interprets the Word of God. Rome has abandoned the truths of God's Word long ago which disqualifies itself as God's true church. Carefully, read the seven churches in the book of Revelation . . . How did some of these churches fall away and deservingly warrant a stern rebuke from the Lord?

    You again contradict scripture by stating that the Holy Spirit does not indwell within the people of God. Which passage of scripture are you relying upon to support your view? There is unity within conservative Protestantism regarding the essentials to the Christian faith . . . I can go and worship at several Protestant churches and hear the biblical gospel of salvation by faith through grace, salvation through Christ alone. In addition, I often spend time with family members who are Catholic and they do not all agree with the teachings of Rome; being a former Catholic myself, I can honestly weigh in and say that most Catholics do not know the scriptures and are bound to the church only through fear of being excommunicated. So what is your unity really based upon?"

    More nonsense. A lot of "former" Catholics on this site who knew and know nothing of their "supposed faith." Jesus is God and knows all things, past, present, and future...you are saying God (as the second person of the Blessed Trinity "is dumb" and created a Catholic (His Universal Church) that could go wrong after promising He will be with us to the end of times.

    "...most Catholics do not know the scriptures and are bound to the church only through fear of being excommunicated...

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:16 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    Take your kids out of the present marxist based school system if you can and HOMESCHOOL. Make the necessary sacrifices to instil the FAITH into your children. Pray and have regular devotions morning and night. Seek out christians of like mind and sort through all the rubbish Satan is flooding the Christian with in their our churches and bookshops ect. Contend for the faith and dont give up if you lose your kids or some of them. Keep praying and reaching out and witnessing to and for the truth. Fight the good fight, Hold up the standard when the enemy comes in like a flood. Stay INFORMED and stand on GODS WORD ALONE.

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    " Are you acquainted with C.S. Lewis' book ..."

    Good post and great Christian author.

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "And through both Prayer and Circumstances God has spoken to me and many other believers I know, but not in an audible voice that one can hear...

    True. In Church every morning I recieve locutions and now act upon them; whereas, in the past I thought they were just musings of my own mind and dismissed them. This is often hard to discern, i.e., our thoughts versus His thoughts. I've learned not to dismiss them.
    And, after attending that Charismatic Mass and hearing that "beautiful language" spoken spontaneously at various times during the service I've learned to appreciate it (as the Pentecostal on this site has explained to me)

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:09 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    THis flagging should stop. I have reported this abuse to CP and suggested to identify the flagger on the flagged post.

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:00 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Hi, believer. I've been trying to join the discussion but someone keeps flagging me. The moderators have asked me to be patient while they work on it. Hopefully I can rejoin the discussion soon.

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    pop, it appears you profess to be a Christian and yet you say God has never directly spoken to anyone, well the reality is that when a person truly becomes a Christian they are immediately indwelt by God's Holy Spirit whom God speaks to us through using the Word of God, Prayer, the Church, and Circumstances. And through both Prayer and Circumstances God has spoken to me and many other believers I know, but not in an audible voice that one can hear, but more than any other means God's speaks to us through His Word and in fact if one hears something they believe is from God and it contradicts, violates, and/or supersedes God's Word then it is not God speaking. But even the Bible has recorded specific quotes from God to both the people of those days and to us today. God's Word is as alive today as it was in the days the Holy Spirit was superintending the writing of it.

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    phydave, my apology for not being more specific in my question on theistic evolutionists, but you did give me the information I was seeking with regards to your view of not only them but theistic evolution as a whole, thanks.

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    PhyDave,
    I take it you are not a scientist?
    guilty as charged. I am a teacher, but not in the public school system that you have drutters over. But as an instructor in science, I have to try to keep up with the latest in the areas of general science (Life, Earth, Physical, Health Science). It's all fascinating, and it is hard to keep up with the new discoveries. I can't ask you to slow down. I merely try to synthesize the findings for my students and inject that wild curiosity that is the heart of learning and science.
    I tend to see limitations to science, as it tends to nudge theology from time to time. You made some points with believer which sounded so much like arguments made several decades ago. Your Mt. Olympus reference sounds much like the early Russian cosmonauts declaring not seeing God during their voyages. Are you acquainted with C.S. Lewis' book of essays Christian Reflections? In his last essay, the Seeing Eye, he addresses such scientific expressions of atheism, questioning their validity.
    " climb to the top of Mt. Olympus and you will find no Gods up there." Dandy, St. Paul climbed to the top of the Areopagus (Acts 17: 16ff) and made the same point, clearing the arena for the One true God.
    Science is at best neutral in areas of religion. It has no apparatus to detect the supernatural or miraculous. Yet, it always sems to be the unwelcome party-crasher at the empty tomb each Easter.
    You may declare: Science uber alles (cool German). Fine. I can respect that.
    Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He will reign forever and ever (Handel was German too).
    There. We both have made our Pascalian wagers. Let us depart in peace and live and let live.

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:00 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show PhysDave and popartusa, I'll gladly discuss it with you if you can get your boy criterion to quit flagging my replies. criterion AKA michael-j started flagging me after I confronted him about the rules of the forum. After a warning about his slander, I flagged one of his posts. Now he shows his maturity by flagging everything I write, even when I told mike85 I would pray for the child shot in Baltimore. If you want to have a discussion, you'll have to get criterion to cool it. hide

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    PhyDave,

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Physicist Dave and popartusa, I would be happy to have a discussion with each of you, but you'll have to tell criterion to quit flagging my replies. criterion AKA michael-j started flagging me after I confronted him about the rules of the forum. I warned him about his slander and when he continued, I flagged one of his posts. Now he shows his maturity by flagging everything I write, even when I told mike85 I would pray for the child shot in Baltimore. If you want to have a discussion, you'll have to speak out against his vengeance and get him to stop. hide

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    popartusa,
    You wrote: "some one on the scroll mentioned the "word of god"...always a sign that they are on shakey ground since no one has ever heard a word form the big man in the sky...all is hearsay....not a direct quote in the book...bible that is...I say that god said...or he said that god said or they said that god said...everything we think we know about what god said was said by some human guy just like us who was trying to make us all better folks. so never and i mean never ever use the word of god as the final authority....on anything. it may be good stuff but it is not from god."

    So what part of the Bible do you believe? And how do you choose which parts to believe and which to reject?

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    PhysDave,
    I appreciate the thoughtful and civil replies you've posted. Some on both sides of the discussion fail on both counts. That said, I have a question:

    "Well, science can and has proven that particular sorts of Gods do not exist: climb to the top of Mt. Olympus and you will find no Gods up there. Try to wander out to the edge of the world and find the Midgard Serpent, and you'll find he does not exist.
    I think the same is true of the Christian God, because, e.g., of the scientific impossibility of the Virgin Birth."

    Climbing to the top of Mt Olympus and trying to find the edge of the world are types of observation, a fundamental method of science. However, with the last example (Virgin Birth), you enter a realm where no observations can be made: the past. Is it really proper to say (or at least imply) that a particular miracle (and by extension, that particular God) has been proven false?

  • Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:55 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    some one on the scroll mentioned the "word of god"...always a sign that they are on shakey ground since no one has ever heard a word form the big man in the sky...all is hearsay....not a direct quote in the book...bible that is...I say that god said...or he said that god said or they said that god said...everything we think we know about what god said was said by some human guy just like us who was trying to make us all better folks. so never and i mean never ever use the word of god as the final authority....on anything. it may be good stuff but it is not from god.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Church
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links