"Listening to young atheists, Lessons for a stronger Christianity"

[SolaSaint]

Seems like the issue is, "why are we losing our children when they leave the church". I would say we never had them, or they were not Christian in the first place.

Seeker sensitive teaching and preaching has left our churches with young people who only know of a god who can give them a more abundant life now. They know very little of the truths of scripture and when confronted with any opposition to Christianity they melt and give in to the enemy. Everyone touts that 75-80% of Christian kids leave the faith when they go to college, now do you really believe they were born again?

Sure teaching them what to be on guard for is good (Craig has a book by that title) but they need to be grounded in the gospel and not a counterfeit. :thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

Seems like the issue is, "why are we losing our children when they leave the church". I would say we never had them, or they were not Christian in the first place.

Lack of actual discipleship

 

[SolaSaint]

Yes, our churches today like to pronounce kids saved by a decision they make after using pressure tactics, then they leave them to grow in Christ without much if any guidance. Now this isn't all churches, but I have seen it a lot in the SBC churches where I have been. How sad.

As a wise man once said, "can't lose what you don't have".

 

[Aaron]

Well Aaron, I do not teach science. I teach mathematics. When I have one on one personal discussions with students, if the subject is brought up (by them) I explain the general different perspectives.

1. The Naturalistic Position of cosmology and biology which espouses absolutely no need for a god or creator

2. The "bio-logos" position

3. The ID position

4. The creation science position

I do my best to explain each position as honestly and genuinely as possible and then suggest that they read scripture, literature, research and talk to many others who hold these and variants of these positions. Ultimately, they must decide (choose) where they stand on the issue.

In other words, you tell young atheists that Genesis is best interpreted by atheists.

Good for you!:thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

In other words, you tell young atheists that Genesis is best interpreted by atheists.

Good for you!:thumbs:

Yes. Not once was the Gospel preached. The wisdom of man? Yes. The Gospel? Not once. Exhortation to search out humanistic views of Scripture and other avenues of reason? Several times. Paul has something to say about such instruction as per 1 Corinthians 1 & 2.

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes. Not once was the Gospel preached. The wisdom of man? Yes. The Gospel? Not once. Exhortation to search out humanistic views of Scripture and other avenues of reason? Several times. Paul has something to say about such instruction as per 1 Corinthians 1 & 2.

I have a news flash for you PFT....anything you say, interpret, pontificate et. al. is the "wisdom of man" YOURS. EVERYONES comments is just that "their wisdom". YOU nor anyone else speaks the mind of God, you simply pontificate on what YOU THINK it is.

 

[quantumfaith]

In other words, you tell young atheists that Genesis is best interpreted by atheists.

Good for you!:thumbs:

Exactly what I expect from you, a pernicious attempt at scoring cheap points.

 

[Mexdeaf]

QF,

Thanks for posting that valuable resource. As a BSM director and pastor of a church made up mostly of college students, it is right up my alley of ministry.

 

[quantumfaith]

QF,

Thanks for posting that valuable resource. As a BSM director and pastor of a church made up mostly of college students, it is right up my alley of ministry.

It is a sad fact that students in our nation are so easily being drawn and led to "unbelief". Theism, and christianity in particular is under assault. We should stand ready and prepared to engage the dialogue with strong principles of faith and christian philosophy.

 

[Aaron]

Exactly what I expect from you, a pernicious attempt at scoring cheap points.

Au contraire. It's your argument boiled down.

But let's see if we can get a straightforward answer from you. You have stated that you believe Adam was the first man, but your Darwinism forces you to assert that he had parents, who weren't particularly human.

Now, if asked, what would you say to an atheist who asked about Adam's parents?

 

[Aaron]

See? Asked point blank about your "evangelism," and you bail.

Here's another one. It's an easy yes or no question, but it is based on what you have directly asserted in a past interaction with me, that Adam was a real individual who was the first man. You couldn't bring yourself to confess that his body was made directly from the dust in a special act of God separate and unique from the naturalistic processes we're told by atheists that resulted in all life on earth.

So here is the question: Was Adam born? In other words, did his body gestate in the womb of another organism?

Yes or no?

 

[quantumfaith]

See? Asked point blank about your "evangelism," and you bail.

Here's another one. It's an easy yes or no question, but it is based on what you have directly asserted in a past interaction with me, that Adam was a real individual who was the first man. You couldn't bring yourself to confess that his body was made directly from the dust in a special act of God separate and unique from the naturalistic processes we're told by atheists that resulted in all life on earth.

So here is the question: Was Adam born? In other words, did his body gestate in the womb of another organism?

Yes or no?

Yes, I think it is entirely possible that ADAM was a result of being born.

 

[Aaron]

Unless you're employing meanings in your post other than the prima facie reading thereof, you realize that you're forced into that view not by the Scriptures, but by Darwinism. (And by "Darwinism," I mean any of its multitudinous variations that describe a gradual (guided or not) development or evolution of an organism through succeeding generations.)

But your choice to use all caps in ADAM make me doubt your frankness, as well as your choice to say ADAM is a result, and not an individual.

Are you attempting to be clever? Be plain. And you know what I mean. Stop it with the beguiling jargon.

 

[Aaron]

Oh. It's a Bruce Waltke device. On one hand pretending to affirm that Adam was an historical individual, but using ADAM in one's writing to signify an attempt to broaden the definition of the Hebrew term, and leave one some wiggle room to get out it.

You think you're being clever, but in reality you're being disingenuous.

I have yet to interact with a Darwinist who shows evidence of genuine faith.

 

[quantumfaith]

Oh. It's a Bruce Waltke device. On one hand pretending to affirm that Adam was an historical individual, but using ADAM in one's writing to signify an attempt to broaden the definition of the Hebrew term, and leave one some wiggle room to get out it.

You think you're being clever, but in reality you're being disingenuous.

I have yet to interact with a Darwinist who shows evidence of genuine faith.

Don't bed so childish Aaron, it is very unbecoming. I have been out of town. Yes I think it is a very real possibility that ADAM, Adam, aDam, adAm , adaM or any other permutation you wish to consider had a set of what we would term as biological parents.

 

[preacher4truth]

Don't bed so childish Aaron, it is very unbecoming. I have been out of town. Yes I think it is a very real possibility that ADAM, Adam, aDam, adAm , adaM or any other permutation you wish to consider had a set of what we would term as biological parents.

Your accusation above concerning 'childish' is unfortunately nothing less than an inflammatory statement.

Secondly, your conclusions concerning 'biological parents' fails twofold: 1) It is extra-biblical in its subjectivity and is adding to the revelation of God; 2) It denies the power of God in creation to make man from dust as is stated in Scripture, something you are in fact denying in your statements. '

That said the alleged 'childishness' of others should be your least concern as extra-biblical teaching on your part has supplanted the former as the most grave error.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Don't bed so childish Aaron, it is very unbecoming. I have been out of town. Yes I think it is a very real possibility that ADAM, Adam, aDam, adAm , adaM or any other permutation you wish to consider had a set of what we would term as biological parents.

Wow... how do you reconcile this with the direct statement that God created Adam from the dust of the earth?

 

[quantumfaith]

Wow... how do you reconcile this with the direct statement that God created Adam from the dust of the earth?

God created the earth to bring forth life. Don't confuse me with being dogmatic...like Preacherfortruth.

I don't "KNOW" how all this came to be other than it was by and through the creative acts and word of God. I do not have a problem with an evolutionary model, it does not in any way take away from the majesty of God. If the evolutionary model is in some way correct....well then Adam (and us) did indeed originate from the materials of the created earth.

BTW Mexdef, If you would really like to know more about the scientific aspect of evolutionary biology from the perspective of a believer and an ID proponent, I would suggest a couple of books by Michael Behe.

1. Darwin's Black Box
2. The Edge of Evolution

 

[Judith]

As a regular subscriber to "To the Source" I found this article quite interesting and thought I would share it. I would also recommend everyone to become a subscriber to the blog.

http://www.tothesource.org/8_7_2013/8_7_2013.htm

Here is something for the young and old alike;
http://evolutionvsgod.com/

 

[Van]

Thought Provoking

As a regular subscriber to "To the Source" I found this article quite interesting and thought I would share it. I would also recommend everyone to become a subscriber to the blog.

http://www.tothesource.org/8_7_2013/8_7_2013.htm

With public schools indoctrinating the young with a godless world view, it is no wonder when kids "come of age," jell or whatever word describes deciding what they really believe for themselves, they turn away from luke warm evangelism.

Note that many were being taught what the bible says, rather than how to study the Bible to determine what it says. Thus they remained vulnerable to the internet world view which mischaracterizes the teachings of Christ. Many atheists attack Calvinism's irrationality, claiming they are addressing Christianity. The "trust me on this" answer gets a LOL response.

The highschoolers formed attachments with individuals, like charismatic youth leaders, rather than with serving Christ.

Many felt that the answers to well crafted questions found on dozens of atheist websites, evaded the issue, and provided no reasonable basis for the validity of the Bible. You know, the "did Adam have a belly button" chestnut.

Our Bible tells us how this will end, the scoffers will prevail before the Lord returns. But as bondservants of Christ, we are to stand firm so that we may win some.