Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church

Author: Stronn

Posts

Total: 563
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Can't you read?

When two enthusiastic, informed, consenting adults have sex with each other.... and they are both married... and not to eachother

What makes that immoral?

You have no idea what morality is, do you?

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,601
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted
You have no idea what morality is, do you?





Pot kettle . You have no idea about a lot of things . You just spout shite claims and then fail to support your shite claims when repeatedly asked to do so, yet, insist on others supporting the claims they make.

RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stronn
You missed my point. The article doesn't give an exhaustive list of why people leave the church. You pretty much claimed it does, and that any other reason provided is a misunderstanding.


Where did I ever imply the article gives an exhaustive list? I said it describes the real reason most young people are leaving the church. Most does not mean all.

It's kind of tough to tell what you're talking about at times. The article refers specifically about young people up to the age of 35, and not specifically
referring to atheists.

"Theists often misunderstand why most atheists don't believe, saying it is because they hate God, or don't wish to obey Him, or don't want to follow religious morality. This article describes the real reason, which most atheists already knew."


I actually agree with much of the article. I just don't think it really supports your claim. Why atheists in general (or of any age) don't believe in God is a different issue than young people leaving the church.




I posted the article because it points out something that many theists can't seem to wrap their heads around--most non-believers don't have some ulterior motive for their non-belief.

I'm not sure what you mean by ulterior motive. I don't see a lot of difference between the non-believer who doesn't give any particular reason for non-belief vs. the non-believer who says they wouldn't want to be a Christian because they wouldn't want to give up their lifestyle. We don't really know what goes on in the mind of other people anyway. So the non-believer who says they don't believe because there's no reason to, may also let on that
in addition they wouldn't want to anyway because they wouldn't want to change their lifestyle. Keep in mind, just because someone is a non-believer
doesn't mean they never contemplated it. Probably most Americans at some point at least contemplated the idea.

Are you still talking about young people now, or including everyone? It might be the case with young people because they're the most impressionable.
If you're talking about everyone, that's a different story. 

I'm talking about the young people, the subject of the article.
I just don't think the article supports your claim.

Don't get me wrong, if someone claims all atheists are mad at God, I can understand the challenge to that. I personally take the basic approach  that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God for whatever reason. Even if there's no specific reason. But in addition, with many there are probably reasons they may not want to anyway.


disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Look there's something shiny. LOL
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stronn
For the most part I have no issue with religious people. I am a firm supporter of separation of church and state, however. When religious people attempt to cross that line, I take issue. When they attempt to corrupt science with religious doctrine, that crosses the line. When they attempt to force religion into schools in order to indoctrinate my children, that crosses the line.  
Separation Of Church And State means different things to different people. To the founding fathers it meant keeping theocracy out of government. This is why they held church services int the capitol with preachers of different denominations.

Who and how are religious people attempting to corrupt science with religious doctrine? Where are they attempting to force religion into schools in order to indoctrinate your children?



I have no problem with mentioning such conjectures, as long as it's made clear that it is sheer conjecture. In fact, I have no problem mentioning ID, as long as it's made clear that it is pseudoscience. In fact, it might be instructive to spend class time showing what pseudoscience looks like, to help reinforce what true science is. In high school, though, there are probably better uses of limited class time.

You definitely have a problem with mentioning ID unless it's presented in a negative light. What makes multiverses conjecture, and ID pseudo-science?


Whether or not it is science is crucial to whether or not it is religion. If it is science, then it is not religion.
If anything is unconstitutional, then in principle that's all that's needed. Right? All the court needed to say was Intelligent Design is unconstitutional, so it cannot be taught, presented, referred to in a public school. Wouldn't you agree?


And what is your definition of religion?


Because then ID's proponents would be claiming that ID is part of philosophy, and you would have different arguments and counter-arguments.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. How does this answer this question?

"And because it was judged as unconstitutional, placing it in a philosophy class is unconstitutional as well because it's still in a public school. How then can that be a different matter? If teaching ID in a public school is unconstitutional, why would you think that it would be okay in the philosophy department?"

I'm not claiming it doesn't answer it, but I just don't see how it does. It just looks (which can be deceiving) like you're giving a reason why it also shouldn't be presented in Philosophy.




Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
You can do nothing on your own.
I don't believe you. 

The love part and all that's fine, and if he's bored... have fun watching me i guess. But the above i don't believe you. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
Perhaps you are taking for granted all you rely on.

Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
No i'm not-ish (of course i take things for granted). I just understand what i rely on and who i put that burden on. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
So you say.

But it is not wrong to say you can do nothing on your own. You can't even live on your own. Your very existence was given to you and is sustained by God.
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
But it is not wrong to say you can do nothing on your own. You can't even live on your own. Your very existence was given to you and is sustained by God.
That's like saying i can't live without my parents. I don't understand why you think it's right to say you can't do anything on your own... that's just not right. If there is a god that manifested my being into existence that's one thing, but other than that... i'm in control. With help of course, and if i'm getting divine help, cool... high five god... but i don't need a sky daddy, i got this. I'm sure if there is a god... he respects my individuality.  

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
I wonder if you'll feel the same as an old man who has others changing his diapers.

RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay, now I see what you're driving at. No, I don't think this is at all an accurate portrayal for several reasons. First of all, what percentage of religious adherents are  purely atheistic and choose their religion based on its menu of prohibitions? Have you ever met anyone who, when asked, "how did you choose your religion," said "I looked at what I was allowed to do, and when I found one I could put up with, I decided that must be true?" Compare that number to, say, the number of Christians who had Christian parents. And no, Christians expressly DO NOT have to embrace the sin concept, it's like the leading thing they love about Jesus! He sucked all those sins up for them! You must be aware of the doctrine "once saved, always saved." Similarly, no atheist says "I sort of believe in God, but if I could only jack off without him getting so mad...you know what, I'll be an atheist, solved!" {ZIP!} I misunderstood what you were implying about premarital sex, I thought you were saying that Christians are super moral because they're monogamists (they're not, as the bible shows) and therefore they don't have premarital sex (they do, as every study about the topic ever conducted shows). 


People become believers for multiple reasons. Like I said in a recent post, probably most Americans have at one point in time at least contemplated becoming a Christian. Probably even Aron Ra. If they were consistently die-hard atheists from the day they were born, they would never have contemplated it. And the fact that they didn't become believers means they must have had a reason not to. I think I provided some of the reasons amongst multiple reasons.


As far as Once Saved, Always Saved, I know what it's like to backslide. It's a painful experience. The idea that anyone can get away with sin, even if
they died and were allowed in heaven, is completely false. Paul actually warns believers that if they're conscience is not seared while sinning, check themselves to make sure they really are in the faith. This is all explained in texts referring to hearing God's voice, and knowing God's voice, and being chastened. God doesn't chasten non-believers just like a parent doesn't chasten another parent's child.
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x


ID shouldn't be taught in science class because it isn't science, as it cannot be tested or demonstrated. As far as "it opens up too many questions," that's half the problem: it opens up too many questions that do not have answers that can be...TESTED OR DEMONSTRATED. I would sure love to hear you detail what you think the ID portion of science would sound like as a teacher, and what EXACTLY it teaches. What does it explain? Don't confuse how with why, here, a common issue. "How does the sun shine" and "Why does the sun shine" have exactly the same answer. "How was the earth created" and "Why was the earth created" do not. Okay, so we can leave it out of science entirely as it is not in any way subject to the examination of the scientific method, agree? Let's look at it in a philosophical but non-denominational way.

Philosophically, "the cosmos might have been created by an intelligent agent" is as far as you can go in a public school, you figure, in order to be fair to all faiths. Okay, so then what would a universe with a creator look like and why? The WHY is the philosophical portion, as far as I can tell. How would a philosophy teacher help students learn to think about this portion? You won't like the answers. I'm all for including it in philosophical
discussion, but I bet that only wins more converts to atheism, at least among the critical thinking crowd. We can play the questions out if you like, but
you never seemed to enjoy that as much as I do, and you disappear when I do it, and I like having you around. 

I'm not a teacher, but I'll attempt to explain it the best I can from my understanding. First off, to teach ID in science class, it would require someone
specially qualified (and probably specially trained). Someone who would know the parameters for instance in a religion sensitive educational system. For the most part, the teaching of ID would really actually focus more on teaching evolution, except broaden the teaching to include the negatives of evolution. That might be the starting point, and then the professor can go forward from there. Where I think some of the confusion about teaching
ID originates is from the idea that the professor would give scientific insight into how a creator would create/design the universe (creator mixes 'A' with 'B', and produces 'C', the universe). Obviously that's not what it's about.

The major proponents of ID by the way do not think ID should be mandatory. But any professor should have the right to challenge evolution, and refer to intelligent design.

As far as philosophy, I would speculate that the professor might pose the question to the pupils do they believe in God/a god/gods, not sure (agnostic), or of course non-belief (atheism)? They may pose the question to Christians and various types of theists what they believe, and why? They may pose the question to agnostics and atheists what do they think the possibility of there being a creator/designer is? What are the possibilities of a deistic creator who only set the motion for the development of our universe through a big bang? Would a deistic creator who only lit the spark for naturalistic evolution to take place be as, or any less probable than any other unproven theory designed to solve puzzles/mysteries like multiverse and the string theories, and why? Could this creator actually have been involved with designing the universe, or only limited to setting the stage for natural evolution?

If the creator may have designed the universe, how would that affect their view on evolution if this were the case?

I'm a little puzzled by some of your comments.

"You won't like the answers."

I just don't understand this comment to where I can't even say what or why I don't understand.

"but I bet that only wins more converts to atheism"

I can at least entertain myself with this one (thank you).

Who would these converts to atheism be? They couldn't be atheists signing up for the course because they're already atheists. Unless you think this
course might drive them to renewing their atheist vows.


Christians, (general) theists, deists? If so, why in the world would you think such a course would be so messed up that it would drive a believer to atheism?


And of course, why do you always assume the atheist to be the critical thinker (other than you being an atheist)?








Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
I wonder if you'll feel the same as an old man who has others changing his diapers.
Come on man, being a person that is on debate sites you should know this statement is a fallacy. But i get how in this context it's not too much a fallacy. But yes, that person depends on others... but most importantly, that person isn't me... and if it were, i would still be in control. Just bc people have to help me exist a little longer doesn't change that. Plus, if it were me i would die before i got to that point... trust me, i know how to die if i want to. It would be my choice to even get to that level of dependence. 

None of you truly understand my belief. In part bc i don't explain it fully, and in part bc you have your own. There is nothing that happens in this reality that isn't through my eyes. Once that stops i don't exist anymore. So, whatever the experience is... i'm going through it. With whatever help, with whatever guidance, i'm going through it. In that sense it's a solipsistic belief. It's kinda a community solipsism. I don't know how to really define it other than i'm the observer and will experience what i experience in any reality / anything reality throws at me. If it's not me anymore, i'm dead and gone. But there is nuance in that too... that's why i bring up silly analogies. I would truly be a vampire. I would truly be Joker. So who am i ultimately? I can't think of anything past an infinite observer having finite experiences (that is, if you ask me to define paradise).

That is how i define god. Not that i'm god bc that's the last thing i'd ever want to be. I define god as the ultimate reality too... it's just my definition of reality is different than yours... but in this ultimate reality... both of us are who we are. But again... who am i and who are you? That's the question. Are we infinitely the same, or are we infinitely different? Would it not be hell if we were infinitely the same? It would be to me, and if it's not to you... i don't know what to say. Other than i don't ever want to be you in that case. It's really simple for me... either i die and i'm gone, or i die and continue to be who i am. But who i am is really complicated if we add in infinity.  
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
The ID exam for your bachelor degree.
The answers to all questions is.
Godddit.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
Sounds to me like what guides your beliefnis a personal sense of aesthetics.

Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
Sounds to me like what guides your beliefnis a personal sense of aesthetics.
I don't understand what you mean enough to comment.  

ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
People become believers for multiple reasons. Like I said in a recent post, probably most Americans have at one point in time at least contemplated becoming a Christian. Probably even Aron Ra. If they were consistently die-hard atheists from the day they were born, they would never have contemplated it. And the fact that they didn't become believers means they must have had a reason not to. I think I provided some of the reasons amongst multiple reasons.

And you saying it doesn't mean it makes sense: the overwhelming, OVERWHELMING majority of American Christians are born into American Christianity. They don't choose it. That's how they're born. Sensibly, the OVERWHELMING majority of American atheists are therefore NOT born into it, they figure it out. It's not sensible to say that people who didn't become believers must have had a REASON not to, when in fact the only reason required not to believe in something is simply because it doesn't make sense. Do you need a reason not to believe Harry Potter is a documentary and that Hogwarts School of Wizardry isn't real? What reason do you have for not believing in the Roman Pantheon? You're inventing things out of whole cloth. Your reason may have covered like half a percentage point. And you don't address my question: First of all, what percentage of religious adherents are  purely atheistic and choose their religion based on its menu of prohibitions? Have you ever met anyone who, when asked, "how did you choose your religion," said "I looked at what I was allowed to do, and when I found one I could put up with, I decided that must be true?

As far as Once Saved, Always Saved, I know what it's like to backslide. It's a painful experience. The idea that anyone can get away with sin, even if 
they died and were allowed in heaven, is completely false. Paul actually warns believers that if they're conscience is not seared while sinning, check themselves to make sure they really are in the faith. This is all explained in texts referring to hearing God's voice, and knowing God's voice, and being chastened. God doesn't chasten non-believers just like a parent doesn't chasten another parent's child.
This also does not address the topic at hand. You said "atheists want to be able to sin whenever they want, that's one reason they're mad at god and Jesus, because if they're real, then atheists would feel too bad about sinning," essentially. My point is that's exactly true of Christians and their once saved, always saved doctrine. Jesus came down, somehow absolved all past and future sins which means if you're Christian you get to go to his house when you die, and not the lake of fire like the starved Sudanese infant has to. Christians are the ones with sin-proof armor. When I do something bad, I have to take into account the feelings of others and how my actions impact them: no reward for me, no punishment, but I have to weigh real world impact. Yeah, some Christians think if you die after sinning, you go to hell, and a lot more believe if you know Jesus, no matter what you do, whether it's molest a child who's working in your church, cheat on your wife with her sister, order a thousand gay people rounded up and tortured, or jerk off when you're horny, you get to go to heaven. This is a blank check for sinning if your doctrine is true: I can sell women as prostitutes all day long. If on my death bed, I have a sincere conversion experience, and die 'with Jesus in my heart,' guess what? Almost every denomination of Christianity says I go to the same heaven as the most righteous. That you hail as perfect justice. It's the appeal of Christianity: you're told you're born a disgusting piece of worm ridden filth sinner whom God reviles, but lucky you, he already killed his own kid for you! (???) So now he loves you again, no matter how many times you punch your wife, so long as you're sincerely sorry and have Jesus, so you better get your ass into church and donate. It's your only hope.

Scam. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
I'm saying that you determine your  beliefs based on whether or not it sounds nice to you.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
I would just like to point out that we Orthodox never had a "once saved always saved" doctrine, and that this is a Calvinist innovation. John Calvin himself was not Orthodox, and many of his teachings are directly at odds with what the church has always taught.

Yes, we think that doctrine is as ridiculous as you do.

And really, to be honest, most of what you hear in protestant churches is bad theology, so learning the faith from them is a bad idea, no matter how passionate some of them might be about their errors.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Antinomianism and neo-gnosticism are the prevailing heresies of this age. If these are your errors, why not do whatever seems right in your eyes? Christ is irrelevant. Might as well rub your genitals on anything that consents(or what won't snitch on you if there is no consent).

ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Someone who would know the parameters for instance in a religion sensitive educational system.

PLease explain this italicized part. How does one teach intelligent design to a Hindu, a Scientologist, a Mormon and a standard Protestant Christian? Is the answer "remove all religious implications to the topic"? 
For the most part, the teaching of ID would really actually focus more on teaching evolution, except broaden the teaching to include the negatives of evolution.
The 'negatives' of evolution? Give an example. Because I can't think of another scientific theory where you would teach the 'positives' and 'negatives' of that theory, you would simply teach the FACTS and METHODS OF DERIVING SAME. For example, germ theory of medicine: Positive would be medical advancement and much longer lifespan. Negative would be "but then demons might not be real." Negatives of 'gravitational theory,' or 'plate tectonic theory,' it sounds ridiculous. But maybe I don't understand what you mean by negatives of evolutionary theory. Please clarify?

. Where I think some of the confusion about teaching  ID originates is from the idea the professor would give scientific insight into how a creator would create/design the universe (creator mixes 'A' with 'B', and produces 'C', the universe). Obviously that's not what it's about.
Yeah, this is kind of what it has to be about if it wants to be science. At least we can both agree it's not science and belongs nowhere near science, because it does not withstand scientific rigor, at all. If you can find me another proposition that falls apart as easily as ID does that's taught as science, I'd be very interested. So let's look at the philosophical issues instead. Because it sounds to me like you think philosophy classes are basically campfire chats with a youth pastor, and not formal schools of thought to ponder. A philosophy class is very difficult, it features things like "Situational ethics" and "utilitarianism" and many very formal concepts. Your questions, I'll play your standard student. 

 They may pose the question to Christians and various types of theists what they believe, and why?
"I'm a Christian because my parents are. What does that have to do with whether life was designed or not, philosophically?"
atheists: what do they think the possibility of there being a creator/designer is?
"I'd need to see the evidence to make a conclusion."

What are the possibilities of a deistic creator who only set the motion for the development of our universe through a big bang? 
"It's A possibility but one without evidence to support it."

 Would a deistic creator who only lit the spark for naturalistic evolution to take place be as, or any less probable than any other unproven theory designed to solve puzzles/mysteries like multiverse and the string theories, and why?
"I'm an 11th grader / junior in college taking an elective...I don't know what the multiverse or string theory is, but what do they have to do with philosophy or if there was a creator? Are we ever going to talk about Kant?"

Could this creator actually have been involved with designing the universe, or only limited to setting the stage for natural evolution? 
"Which creator again? Because you've not limited its powers, literally anything we can imagine, it can do. Or could have done if it were still around, can we know if it's still around?"

If the creator may have designed the universe, how would that affect their view on evolution if this were the case? 
"How are the two connected, precisely? Evolution is biology, this is philosophy."

You see your problem...even you, a staunch ID must be taught in some capacity at public schools proponent, can't figure out a way to wring any education from the proposition. Any test answer could be "because it was designed that way," even the answer to "Why can't we find evidence of a creator?" As far as why I think atheists are critical thinkers, it's because every one I've met in real life arrived at atheism through rational thought, while the critical thinking Christians I know basically apologize for their Christianitiy, saying things like 'I know, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but still. This is how I was raised." As a result, they're forcing themselves to maintain belief out of comfort. 
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I would just like to point out that we Orthodox never had a "once saved always saved" doctrine, and that this is a Calvinist innovation. John Calvin himself was not Orthodox, and many of his teachings are directly at odds with what the church has always taught.

And I would just like to point out that your church is much smaller than the churches who believe OSAS. So how do you convince them they're wrong? "My religion is better"?
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
He's just here to tell theists they are wrong and stupid. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Actually, The Orthodox Church is the 2nd largest congregation of those calling themselves Christian on the planet, which is pretty miraculous considering we have been the target of genocides for the last thousand years.

And none of the churches that claim this doctrine of "once saved always saved" are yet 500 years old.







ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
And so what? Being large or small, young or old does not affect if you're right. Make an argument that you think would be convincing to another Christian.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
I am pointing out that your claim is false, it was not intended to be an argument from popularity.

You are not a Christian, so I don't believe I could make an argument to you as a Christian.


What I would say to everyone, Christian or otherwise, is that we can be historically verified as the original historic church, and historically not being part of the church means that you are not really Christian.

ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I'm asking if you can make an argument to another Christian that your church is right and theirs is wrong with something other than how old your church is. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
The lives and writings of the saints demonstrate that ours is the enlightened church. The Holy Spirit is still with the church. What the church teaches is superior to what other churches teach. The reason is simple. We actually are the rightful guardians of the  faith, while other churches are simply winging it based off of the crumbs that fell off the table of the true church.

Truly, it doesn't matter whether someone else is convinced or not. I will say this, a disproportionate number of former protestant reverends, pastors, and preachers have found their way into just the church I go to. These were men who came to the true church because they were sincere and this is where their studies led them. These are educated people. There is even a former Roman Catholic priest who is Orthodox now in our church, so not even just the church leaders of protestants have found their way here. There is even a former Buddhist monk at our church!
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
I'm saying that you determine your  beliefs based on whether or not it sounds nice to you.
My belief simply revolves around the implications of infinity. And since we are talking about "my" beliefs there will of course be parts that sound nice to me... but, you're not fully paying attention if you think i have a "nice" belief. There are most definitely parts that don't sound nice to me that i'll have to endure... but i accept that's part of the experience and will continue to deal with it and defeat it every time. The conclusion i've come to isn't heaven man... i accept i will be infinitely struggling. In this life (my current paradise), and if there is a next... i'll deal with that too. So, of course it sounds nice to me in that regard when it empowers me to stay strong and focused.