Causes of Christian decline

[Confused]

While Christianity is still alive and dominant in the United States, in many other parts of the world, its been on a steady decline. There have been many postulated causes for this. Some of the most popular are:
-increased literacy and education has led to much critical inquiry into various
aspects of scripture capitalizing on the many discrepancies to point to logical
conclusions that it is mere myth, no more credible than the Roman Gods.
-scientific advancements have dispelled the occurrences of much of scripture
-society has reached a point where life isn't measured by the days until the final
reappearance of Christ. Generations are no longer living like Christ will return
tomorrow, as such, religion takes a back seat to todays life.
-the advancement of medicine has effectively explained many diseases and
disorders and offered treatments and cures in the form of natural medicine
rather than the ancient "snake oil" miracles.
-society has changed so dramatically that the average family has not the time to
devote to religion. Or todays society has reached a point where few things
aren't occurring 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so adhering to many of the
principles in religious doctrine is simply impossible.
-and my favorite, mankind has gotten so weary of trying to figure out which form
of Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is the proper form that it is less
mentally taxing and time consuming to just not even give it thought.

For debate:
1) Which of the above would you consider being the cause for the declining
religious community? Or is there another cause you might attribute to it?
2) Do you think God would be consider any of the above reasons justified or
would He still hold you accountable even though the society now raising you is
the one that has perpetuated this decline and has passed these same values
onto you. In other words, would He be forgiving of the generation that currently
has to have a 2 income source just to make ends meet and as such, has allowed
religion to take a backseat? And what of the future generations that have these
same principles passed on to them? They know no better.

[twobitsmedia]

I guess before I answer I would like to know how the Bible is an attempt to prove his existence?

If there was no Bible, what other proof would there be?

Is the Bible proof?

[twobitsmedia]

I could make up several things that could not be tested by science but that certainly does not give them any foundation to be real or existent.

I don't disagree.

[twobitsmedia]

I am a bit confused here. God hasn't tried to prove His existence? He may not have tried to explain His origin, but I think the bible itself is His attempt at proving His existence. If people turn away from it because it was poorly written (or whatever their problem is with it), then that would clearly indicate a failure, right?

I guess before I answer I would like to know how the Bible is an attempt to prove his existence?

Without the bible, would we even know who God is? Without scripture to tell me God exists, would I even consider Him existing?

So you only believe God exists because the Bible said? Nothing experiential? No reasoning or thought put into it?

[alexiarose]

I guess before I answer I would like to know how the Bible is an attempt to prove his existence?

If there was no Bible, what other proof would there be?

Is the Bible proof?

No, it is only a tool we use to educate ourselves about Him. It isn't proof of His existence in the way of truth of His existence. But without it, there wouldn't even be the education of Him.

[twobitsmedia]

I agree that God is not tetsable by scientific methodology. That is the failure of science in that is is unable to test Spirit.

Failure of science or failure of God?

"Failure" may be too strong, but yes it is directed toward science: it is unable. God identified himself as "I Am." I am just not thinking that God has his identity wrapped up in scientific methodology.

Tell me, do you fully understand the 'I Am' statement in genesis. Do you know that in the original hebrew, it was a pun?

I am aware of the Jewish interpretation and find it without merit. I realize you hold it dearly. I am sure God was just espousing "puns" left and right considering the humorous deity he was. .

[alexiarose]

I am a bit confused here. God hasn't tried to prove His existence? He may not have tried to explain His origin, but I think the bible itself is His attempt at proving His existence. If people turn away from it because it was poorly written (or whatever their problem is with it), then that would clearly indicate a failure, right?

I guess before I answer I would like to know how the Bible is an attempt to prove his existence?

Without the bible, would we even know who God is? Without scripture to tell me God exists, would I even consider Him existing?

So you only believe God exists because the Bible said? Nothing experiential? No reasoning or thought put into it?

This is probably the worst question asked at the absolute worst time. But I will try. No, I have nothing experiential to support God. I have just always had faith. Now I am adding reasoning and thought into it and I am not confident in faith. The bible really had little to do with my faith. It only told me God existed.

[twobitsmedia]

I guess before I answer I would like to know how the Bible is an attempt to prove his existence?

If there was no Bible, what other proof would there be?

Is the Bible proof?

No, it is only a tool we use to educate ourselves about Him. It isn't proof of His existence in the way of truth of His existence. But without it, there wouldn't even be the education of Him.

I agree, and I guess that is my point. God exists even without the Bible.

[twobitsmedia]

I am a bit confused here. God hasn't tried to prove His existence? He may not have tried to explain His origin, but I think the bible itself is His attempt at proving His existence. If people turn away from it because it was poorly written (or whatever their problem is with it), then that would clearly indicate a failure, right?

I guess before I answer I would like to know how the Bible is an attempt to prove his existence?

Without the bible, would we even know who God is? Without scripture to tell me God exists, would I even consider Him existing?

So you only believe God exists because the Bible said? Nothing experiential? No reasoning or thought put into it?

This is probably the worst question asked at the absolute worst time. But I will try. No, I have nothing experiential to support God. I have just always had faith. Now I am adding reasoning and thought into it and I am not confident in faith. The bible really had little to do with my faith. It only told me God existed.

Once again, I agree. When faith is challenged it will usually make it stronger, if it is real faith. It won't always seem that way and sometimes it will feel like you are losing it altogether. But the end result will be something stronger.

[Goat]

I agree that God is not tetsable by scientific methodology. That is the failure of science in that is is unable to test Spirit.

Failure of science or failure of God?

"Failure" may be too strong, but yes it is directed toward science: it is unable. God identified himself as "I Am." I am just not thinking that God has his identity wrapped up in scientific methodology.

Tell me, do you fully understand the 'I Am' statement in genesis. Do you know that in the original hebrew, it was a pun?

Goat - could you expand on this ??? I have not heard this before.

It has to do with hebrew of what "I am what I am".. which is
"Ehyeh asher ehyeh,.. but then further goes on to say 'if they ask you my name
you can just say 'I am' or Ehyeh.
This is basically giving a joke about the name of God. Ehyeh is very close to
YHWH, so God was basically giving Moses his name without having to say it.

The source for this is "The Book of J" by Harold Bloom.

[Cathar1950]

I agree that God is not tetsable by scientific methodology. That is the failure of science in that is is unable to test Spirit.

Failure of science or failure of God?

"Failure" may be too strong, but yes it is directed toward science: it is unable. God identified himself as "I Am." I am just not thinking that God has his identity wrapped up in scientific methodology.

Tell me, do you fully understand the 'I Am' statement in genesis. Do you know that in the original hebrew, it was a pun?

Goat - could you expand on this ??? I have not heard this before.

It has to do with hebrew of what "I am what I am".. which is
"Ehyeh asher ehyeh,.. but then further goes on to say 'if they ask you my name
you can just say 'I am' or Ehyeh.
This is basically giving a joke about the name of God. Ehyeh is very close to
YHWH, so God was basically giving Moses his name without having to say it.

The source for this is "The Book of J" by Harold Bloom.

Great book. He also explains that it would also mean "I will be" or become that which I will become. Bloom also talks about God not being present in other words he will be where he will be or present when he is present or as Bloom say absent when he is absent.
I am now reading "The disapearence of God" by Friedman.
In his book he points out the how God seems to disapear while man's role becomes greater. Like growing up and being on your own where in this case the parent moved out. He explains this as a product of the writers where they only wrote of second hand experiences and so God was always in the past or in the future. I let you know how it ends.