Why do Christians lose faith?

[bhsmte]

makes me curious what knowledge you gained, but maybe that is a different story. Notice I said curious, that is not a judgment call, it is a curiosity as to why the difference, nothing more or less, before someone tries to inflate it into something it isn't .

Have you ever acquired knowledge that changed an opinion you had on something?

 

[razzelflabben]

Have you ever acquired knowledge that changed an opinion you had on something?

many times over...how about you?

 

[bhsmte]

many times over...how about you?

You bet.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are varying degrees of "losing faith." But there is difference between "knowing" Christ, as opposed to [wanting] to "believe" in Him. No one who "knows" Christ loses faith...because they are One with Him and He has already proven His faithfulness. So, "losing faith" is limited to those who do not "know" Him.

With that clarification, losing faith was explained by Jesus in the parable of the sower: Matthew 13

I agree.

 

[dcalling]

You bet.

Yet you never talked about what knowledge you gained that changed your mind ...

 

[bhsmte]

Yet you never talked about what knowledge you gained that changed your mind ...

Knowledge that the historocity of the gospels was in serious question.

This process, triggered me to take a fresh look at christian theology. The result was, i could not longer reconcile them as reliable. In fact, my eyes actually opened, to how the christian theology, is actually morally bankrupt, IMO.

 

[bhsmte]

There are varying degrees of "losing faith." But there is difference between "knowing" Christ, as opposed to [wanting] to "believe" in Him. No one who "knows" Christ loses faith...because they are One with Him and He has already proven His faithfulness. So, "losing faith" is limited to those who do not "know" Him.

With that clarification, losing faith was explained by Jesus in the parable of the sower: Matthew 13

I am sure that is quite comforting to you, to be able to easily dismiss and label those who move away from christianity.

 

[razzelflabben]

Knowledge that the historocity of the gospels was in serious question.

This process, triggered me to take a fresh look at christian theology. The result was, i could not longer reconcile them as reliable. In fact, my eyes actually opened, to how the christian theology, is actually morally bankrupt, IMO.

Interesting because the more I looked into scripture the more I found truth. In fact, not all that long ago, new archaeological evidence was discovered that further testified to the truths in the bible that before could not be evidenced.

Where did you get your information?

 

[bhsmte]

Interesting because the more I looked into scripture the more I found truth. In fact, not all that long ago, new archaeological evidence was discovered that further testified to the truths in the bible that before could not be evidenced.


Where did you get your information?

It was the opposite for me.

The more i examined the work of well credentialed scholars and historians, the more it became apparent, the theology couldnt be reconciled with reality.

 

[razzelflabben]

It was the opposite for me.

The more i examined the work of well credentialed scholars and historians, the more it became apparent, the theology couldnt be reconciled with reality.

?

 

[Lulav]

MOD HAT

Mar 8, 2016 A trip down Memory Lane...................................

THE TOPIC:

@ThorinSmolderingshield , created a thread in Exploring Christianity that made me think. Here is the thread ( http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-do-you-believe-in-god.7929064/ ).

I recently saw a sermon by Dr. Charles Stanley on Trinity Broadcasting Network called "Walking Away from God". (Sorry, I can't find a link to the video, but maybe somebody else can post one.)

So here is the thought (partly just paraphrasing Stanley's sermon): Christians believe that God has a purpose in their lives. Sometimes there are events or conditions that seem to be inconsistent with the Christian's understanding of God's purpose in their life. St. Paul had the mysterious "thorn" that he asked God to remove without success. People can also have addictions, tragedies, etc. The Christian cannot see how these things are consistent with God's purpose in their lives.

According to Stanley, many Christians walk away from God when confronted with these adversities (that is what happened to me several times). However, other Christians trust that these adversities are part of God's purpose - even though they can't understand at that time. Those Christians grow in maturity.

Atheists often chuckle about Christians telling them that they rejected God because "they wanted to sin", but I think there is some truth to the broader idea that some atheists rejected God because events and circumstances in their lives seemed inconsistent with belief in a God that had a purpose for them. Speaking for myself, losing faith in the purpose of your life is not healthy psychologically.

I'm not sure if this thread fits the SOP for this forum. It seems to me that belief and disbelief have a psychological ingredient that is often overlooked in apologetics. Sometimes the apologetics arguments presented by both Christians and atheists are only rationalizations of a belief that has been reached for psychological reasons.

EDIT: Another thing that comes to mind is the teachings of Jesus. The Lord's Prayer says "Thy will be done". The night before Jesus was crucified He asked God to find another way if possible, but he concluded with something like "Thy will be done". So Christians facing adversity need to trust that God's will is good - even if they can't understand. Sometimes people understand later in life. Sometimes it remains a mystery. But atheists face the same problem. Everybody needs to have faith that life has purpose - no matter the source of that purpose.

 

[ScottA]

I am sure that is quite comforting to you, to be able to easily dismiss and label those who move away from christianity.

Then you have missed the point all together.

The point is, there are many who will never lose faith because they are not following in faith or blindly, but because they "know" the truth. There is a vast segment of people whom are left out by those who don't actually "know" Him.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then you have missed the point all together.

The point is, there are many who will never lose faith because they are not following in faith or blindly, but because they "know" the truth. There is a vast segment of people whom are left out by those who don't actually "know" Him.

How do you distinguish the two?

 

[bhsmte]

Then you have missed the point all together.

The point is, there are many who will never lose faith because they are not following in faith or blindly, but because they "know" the truth. There is a vast segment of people whom are left out by those who don't actually "know" Him.

A valid point must first be made, before it can be missed.

 

[ScottA]

A valid point must first be made, before it can be missed.

In making such a point, I can [say] that I "know" Him (as many do). But to go further than saying so is of no effect: there have been miracles and people have died for what they know...so, then, the burden then falls on those who do not believe, for not [equally] being able to "know" the difference. Your not knowing is not our shortcoming, but yours. Furthermore, if you will not come to where the information is...that too is your own shortcoming.

 

[bhsmte]

In making such a point, I can [say] that I "know" Him (as many do). But to go further than saying so is of no effect: there have been miracles and people have died for what they know...so, then, the burden then falls on those who do not believe, for not [equally] being able to "know" the difference. Your not knowing is not our shortcoming, but yours. Furthermore, if you will not come to where the information is...that too is your own shortcoming.

Ah, burden shift when you have yet to substantiate your claim.

Who could have known, that was coming?

 

[ScottA]

How do you distinguish the two?

This is one of those "you had to be there" or "it takes one to know one" things. But for someone who is not "one" to know or distinguish the difference...I would say, it would be impossible.

But, it's a great question...and it would be good if we could actually reason through the issue here.

The problem of not being able to give you anything but our word for it, simply exists by the nature of what we are talking about...which, in the proper light, is a credit to what it is we are saying. In other words, if it were just all talk, it would not have any [actual] supernatural component. The point being...we are talking about the supernatural - just how would you suggest we fit that into natural terms for you? Even if we could...that would make it no longer supernatural...and then your skepticism would be well founded. But in the case of something [actually] supernatural - it's never going to happen. Bottom line...we can't come to you (except in word), which only leaves, you coming to us...and a standoff of demanding that all things natural and supernatural be proven on natural turf...is just ridiculous.

 

[ScottA]

Ah, burden shift when you have yet to substantiate your claim.

Who could have known, that was coming?

It's going to be that way as long as you expect us to be able to bring the supernatural into your natural realm - it ain't gonna to happen.

 

[bhsmte]

It's going to be that way as long as you expect us to be able to bring the supernatural into your natural realm - it ain't gonna to happen.

I know you can't support your claims, that has become obvious.

 

[ScottA]

I know you can't support your claims, that has become obvious.

Demonstrate that you "know."