Why do Christians lose faith?

com7fy8 said:

Either I accept that this scripture says what it means or I don't; and God said it or it is not God's word. If it is God's word, then yes He has a good intention, somehow, for how this directive is meant to work. Ones can lose faith when they read something and right away think up all the bad things it could mean.

Click to expand...

And if one has already set aside any possibility of them being there and being true, then faith has whitewashed the bible and God, producing a picture which is dependent on the understanding brought to the bible just as much as someone who brings to it a perspective that "there are no such things as miracles".
In both cases there is pre-installed limitation of what might be found in the bible, of what it might be recording and reporting.

But God is able to create [good], even from the worst of things,

Click to expand...

I don't observe it. I've seen too many ills without good outcomes to trust that there is, must be some hidden or long term good *that can only be obtained this way*
That needs a leap of faith which I cannot see as reasonable

The idea of a less-than-good God is really only there for elimination purposes
even if it fits the world we see remarkably well.
It strengthens the dichotomy: either a perfect benevolent deity, or none.
I know why I say "none, then."

Chris B said:

No, not at all. More looking at whether some of the terrible vicissitudes affecting people, including some I have known personally, an really fit into a universe where the top level of authority is omnipotent and benevolent, when for just one option a capricious or cruel deity might seem a better fit to the observable universe.
That such affect Christians too is an extra consideration.
I'm not prepared to say of those who lost their struggle that they were in any wise lacking as faithful Christians.
If they were, then I don't know any Christian who can trust their own standing.

But then when circumstances don't appear to match the bible, I'm prepared to doubt the bible rather declaring the bible right and the appearances of necessity mistaken.
I'd say I know the bible too well to trust it.
(if you come to it with trust or faith the problem does not arise, which is a *different* problem!)

Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind talking more about this with you in that, especially since I recently finished a deep study of suffering according to the bible. If you want we can discuss it, but my intent remains the same, I only wanted clarity and you provided that. I do have another question for clarity sake though....you say, "but then when circumstances don't appear to match the bible...." could you give an example here of what you mean, I'm not clear as to what you find that is a discrepancy so to speak. I thank you for your patience and courtesy in this matter.

Nihilist Virus said:

OK so you want to deny that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is talking about rape. I can't force you to stop lying.

Click to expand...

shame on you, that isn't even close to what I said and you are will aware of it by now.

May I just ask you why you trust the current rendition of the Bible if you know that it has contradictions and if you know that no original Biblical manuscript exists? I mean, if no originals exist then all we have is what's been copied by men... fallible men.

Click to expand...

I study the bible in depth, I find the Bible to be truth every single time I test it to see what truth is....

You say you don't trust men, but you trust scripture. But scripture was copied (imperfectly) by hand by men.

Click to expand...

which is exactly why we should study it to see what it says not what man traditionally says it says...but then again, that is what I have been claiming this whole time and you take objection with but refuse to say why you object.

razzelflabben said:

shame on you, that isn't even close to what I said and you are will aware of it by now. I study the bible in depth, I find the Bible to be truth every single time I test it to see what truth is....which is exactly why we should study it to see what it says not what man traditionally says it says...but then again, that is what I have been claiming this whole time and you take objection with but refuse to say why you object.

Click to expand...

The Bible is true every single time? And you study it in depth?

OK how about this...

1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30,Jeremiah 22:11).

2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.

3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah with the underscore is the son of Jehoiakim.

"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring to Zedekiah.

I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31,2 Chronicles 36:2).

II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.

Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiah is his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.

QED


By the way, it turns out that it is Zedekiah. Jeremiah 37:1 confirms this.

Nihilist Virus said:

The Bible is true every single time? And you study it in depth?

OK how about this...

1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30,Jeremiah 22:11).

2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.

3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah with the underscore is the son of Jehoiakim.

"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring to Zedekiah.

I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31,2 Chronicles 36:2).

II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.

Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiah is his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.

QED


By the way, it turns out that it is Zedekiah. Jeremiah 37:1 confirms this.

Click to expand...

Tell me something, the mods were just involved and one of the forum rules is about getting off topic, so how is this on topic? That being said, you would do well to brush up on things like oral history etc. all things that are important to how we study the scriptures.

Nihilist Virus said:

The verb phrase "get out" can mean two different things. "Get out of here" or "get out your wallet." If one is translating from English to another language and focuses only on "get out," then they might get the translation wrong. You have to not only know the language but the culture. And you are NOT an expert. I doubt you even have a Bachelor's degree. For you to bumble along and say the translators all got it wrong because you would otherwise find the content objectionable is simply laughable.

Click to expand...

I smell what you are stepping in. But I think your analogy could be better. The two contexts that you used were the same "to get out" meaning to "remove". I think a better example that actually caused a major issue is the word "kill" as in "thou shall not kill" after going back to the original hebrew word that was used, scholars that found that the KJV translation was inaccurate and the word was actually "murder". I think we all can agree that although the word "kill" and "murder" seem the same, they are in fact entirely different. Just throwing my two cents out there. But good post anyway.

razzelflabben said:

Tell me something, the mods were just involved and one of the forum rules is about getting off topic, so how is this on topic? That being said, you would do well to brush up on things like oral history etc. all things that are important to how we study the scriptures.

Click to expand...

This is actually quite on topic because this is one of the main contradictions that caused me to lose my faith. The topic is "Why do Christians lose faith?"

cloudyday2 said:

That is a good question.

The last few weeks I have felt like my faith in Christianity is back, but I cannot reconcile that faith with all the arguments against Christianity that I believe to be sound. What I do know is that the last several weeks have been incredibly stressful for me in real life, so there has been an emotional need for something, and Christianity is my native religion. Another change is that I had an epiphany about events and decisions in my life that have been creating years and years of bitterness. That bitterness was a huge factor in my walk away from God, and it seems to be mostly gone now. I wouldn't call myself a Christian, because I honestly don't believe any of it now, but it is like my psyche has been rewinding to an earlier time when I was a Christian. I gave up trying to understand my mind a long time ago - there is a lot of hidden psychological nonsense swimming like sharks beneath my little life boat of critical thinking.

My point is that there is a lot of psychology at work in religious belief. Apologetics is somewhat irrelevant in practice.

Click to expand...

That's why Christians get 'em when they're young.

Nihilist Virus said:

That's why Christians get 'em when they're young.

Click to expand...

Well, some others get it when they are old, like me I was raised atheist, looking down on the Christians as people with superstition and a weak mind, but I kept get drawn back to it because the warmth of God.

There are places in the Bible where it is hard to get a explanation (I had another long discussion with a Christian about another error which made me realize that there might be errors in the OT and NT, if we count this one there are 3). But I do have a possible explaination, that Zedekiah's rein does not count because it is just a surrogate.

But none of the errors are contradiction in meaning, so God's message is still clear, that we should be humble, to Love God and Love our neighbors as ourselves, to pray for out enemies and have mercy because that is how God measures us. If we can do that, then the Kingdom of God is here with us on earth.


Anyway, back on track, the primary reason of why Christians lose faith in the US is their weak faith, that when challenged (for example, by evolution), they surrender without even trying to do any study. Sometimes it is easier for former atheists to keep faith because they studied and struggled before turn a Christian.

cloudyday2 said:

Thanks, @dcalling , that is a good point. Up until recently, it was not considered polite to criticize Christianity in the US. Atheists existed, but they knew that they better keep their criticisms of Christianity to themselves. Rudeness toward religion would have alienated fellow atheists as well as theists. Now we live in a cruder society where anything goes.

I agree that Christians who were previously atheists probably have an advantage when their faith is challenged.

Click to expand...

Depend which part of the country you live. Christians are a soft target, due the the teachings of the Bible. You have no idea what kind of stuff I was throwing out at my friends when they invited to their group gathering, and it was a fun experience to get them off balance sometime, but I got lucky that none of them actually lost temper.

It is much easier to attack Christians in a Christian country than another other religion, long time ago the court decided to prohibit anything Christian related in schools, and Christian shop owners are now get targeted for refusing gay weddings (of course Muslims will never be targeted and we all know the reason).

Most likely I got on Christianity at the bad time, since things will be harder and harder for Christians now, but I won't regret my decision, because I have experienced what God has offered (edit, just a few but is enough) and it worth any trouble been a Christian might bring me, so no complains what so ever

Nihilist Virus said:

Um, you already acknowledged that the Bible compels a rapist to marry his victim. Presumably you understand that she is more or less forced to accept him as her husband because of the structure of society, although ultimately it is up to her. So then you do understand that she will be raped at his whim until one of them dies. As long as he doesn't cheat on her, the arrangement will continue with God's blessing.

So don't you dare say the Bible is fair to women.

Click to expand...

If a person sees it this way, yes the person can lose faith.

But if you believe that God is able to change any evil person to learn how to love, then getting the rapist into a family can help the person. Jail does not help someone learn how to love, I would say. Nor does execution. So, it's not about fair, but all that is possible with God, and what He knows can work.

If someone does not have faith that God is able to help an evil person like a rapist, then yes the person could lose the faith that he or she does have, when confronted by what evil people do.

By the way, Jesus was treated more unfairly than anyone. He's a Man And His death was required so we can be forgiven and reconciled with God. So, God's word requires that even Jesus make major sacrifices in order to defeat evil.

So, if one does not have faith for this, then that one at some point can lose what one seems to have.

Now I will be tested.

cloudyday2 said:

Atheists existed, but they knew that they better keep their criticisms of Christianity to themselves.

Click to expand...

It's against federal law in this country to deny a person employment based on he being a Christian.

Nihilist Virus said:

This is actually quite on topic because this is one of the main contradictions that caused me to lose my faith. The topic is "Why do Christians lose faith?"

Click to expand...

really, so the other ones that I already showed you said something other then your claim are sub reasons for you losing your faith? Why didn't you start out with the one that bothers you the most so that I could evidence my claim and we could move on in our discussion? Why hold off the one you find the most offensive till last, and why present more of them so that the thread becomes about your issues with scripture and God rather than the reason people fall away?

Okay, I have a busy day yesterday and am not doing well today (long story) so refresh my mind as to the "main contradiction" that you want to talk about now and where that supposed contradiction is in scripture so we can look at it in context with translation tools and historical references etc. that will tell us the intent of scripture not the intent of man.

Oh, and just for the record, if anyone wants to report me for getting us off topic for addressing all your sub issues, please remember that I have repeatedly tried to keep us on topic and have been repeatedly assured by this poster that we are still on topic...

cloudyday2 said:

That is a good question.

The last few weeks I have felt like my faith in Christianity is back, but I cannot reconcile that faith with all the arguments against Christianity that I believe to be sound. What I do know is that the last several weeks have been incredibly stressful for me in real life, so there has been an emotional need for something, and Christianity is my native religion. Another change is that I had an epiphany about events and decisions in my life that have been creating years and years of bitterness. That bitterness was a huge factor in my walk away from God, and it seems to be mostly gone now. I wouldn't call myself a Christian, because I honestly don't believe any of it now, but it is like my psyche has been rewinding to an earlier time when I was a Christian. I gave up trying to understand my mind a long time ago - there is a lot of hidden psychological nonsense swimming like sharks beneath my little life boat of critical thinking.

My point is that there is a lot of psychology at work in religious belief. Apologetics is somewhat irrelevant in practice.

Click to expand...

this post takes us back to the parable of the sowers, where the worries of the world draw some away.

dcalling said:

Depend which part of the country you live. Christians are a soft target, due the the teachings of the Bible. You have no idea what kind of stuff I was throwing out at my friends when they invited to their group gathering, and it was a fun experience to get them off balance sometime, but I got lucky that none of them actually lost temper.

It is much easier to attack Christians in a Christian country than another other religion, long time ago the court decided to prohibit anything Christian related in schools, and Christian shop owners are now get targeted for refusing gay weddings (of course Muslims will never be targeted and we all know the reason).

Most likely I got on Christianity at the bad time, since things will be harder and harder for Christians now, but I won't regret my decision, because I have experienced what God has offered (edit, just a few but is enough) and it worth any trouble been a Christian might bring me, so no complains what so ever

Click to expand...

which brings up a very good point....throughout history, persecution has always built a much stronger "Church" (big C church) and here in the US, the persecution has for the most part been lacking, making the US church weak to begin with.

Here is a frog >



in a swamp area, as it is getting dark. It knows enough to stay where it is safe and wet and there will be enough food. Even in the dark, it can catch insects to eat.

F.R.O.G. >
Fully
Relying
On
God

Faith has us fully relying on God. So, if people have faith which does not have them relying on God, their faith will fail them, and then they can lose their "faith".

Like this froggie, we can rest in the place of God's provision and safety; and then, even in this dark world, we can see His provision . . . like how a frog at night can see and even catch flying insects

But if our faith is mixed with logic and beliefs witch we have been picking and choosing, and if we are not personally depending on and submitting to God > our intellectual and impersonal faith will fail. We did not trust in logic and copy-cat religious culture, but "we", Paul says "first trusted in" Jesus (Ephesians 1:12). So, we are not here to only trust in and conform to a church group's outward copy-cat worship and culture, but we are being conformed by God > "to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn of many brethren," our Apostle Paul says in Romans 8:29.

So, as much as we are trying to use "faith" to use God, this can fail. And then we can give up on such faith . . . when it has not met the expectations which we and others have dictated and even demanded. God is first about His intention. So, we can get in trouble when try to use faith for what we want and we can't have our own way.

So, yes, what we can lose is what is counterfeit; but then we can go after "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6) which has us in God's all-loving love, so we care about all God desires while we love any and all people like He wants.

But in selfish loving we can get in trouble; and then we can blame our "faith" which made us self-seeking so maybe we were only "loving" people whom we have hoped to use. But love does not have us using anyone, I offer; and in using people we can be putting our faith in them, instead of God. And "faith" in ourselves can be disguised as belief in God, when really we are depending on ourselves for what we want.

"So, certain people do have a point, how it is possible for a person to make one's own self 'God', have faith in oneself, then fail and give up on what was supposed to be faith."

And even if we are on the right track . . . or in the right pond . . . to the Thessalonians, Paul and Sylvanus and Timothy wrote that there was "what is lacking in your faith." (in 1 Thessalonians 3:10) And the Thessalonians were an exemplary church, yet still . . . I can see . . . needed more correction and maturing of their faith. So, if we have faith which stops somewhere in pride and starts looking down on others . . . this sort of faith can get lost. And we can be tricked into thinking there is no hope > this is the design play of false faith, that we will trust in what is false and suppose it is the only possibly right thing, so when it fails we feel there is not better way.

But Jesus never gave up on His disciples. And they could be fighting among themselves, about who was the greatest, and they could be doubting. So, it is good to have hope for ourselves and anyone else, no matter what