Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children

[Diogenes]

In the post "Christians: aren't you embarrassed and angry?" posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1073778
I wrote:

When they finally "get it" and realize most of them are Christians mainly because of childhood indoctrination and step out of the bondage of fantasy they were taught at an early age, then they are embarrassed or angry or both. ... and it has little to do with the reasons stated in post #1.

This suggests the current topic, 'Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children.'

In support of this proposition I quote from the Southern Nazarene University website,
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm where they claim 85% of Christians have their conversion experience ("are saved") at ages 4 to 14 and only 4% after the age of 30.

Parenthetically I note the human brain does not fully develop until about age 25.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

[brunumb]

Hovind admits to micro-level changes, not macro.

If he understood the source of micro-level changes at the molecular level he would not be able to deny the possibility of macro-level changes. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

[brunumb]

Kent H. believes that not only have the thinking in science historically failed him (and us), he also believes that there are downright lies/deception/misleading attempts in science and in science text books.

Sadly, one of the outcomes of religious indoctrination.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If he understood the source of micro-level changes at the molecular level he would not be able to deny the possibility of macro-level changes.

Huh??

Ohhh, I forgot; atheists are the only ones who can truly understand evolution, because they are sooo smart, and we are sooo dumb.

I had forgot about that fun fact.

Thanks for reminding me

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

If a little knowledge (your knowledge) can be dangerous thing, a lot of knowledge (God's infinite wisdom) is beyond catastrophic.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Brilliant! You have perfectly captured the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, uttering the insincere "I will pray for you, while mocking with "Spare me the other riff raff."

Settle down. It wasn't that serious.

When the Pharisees practiced this kind of hypocrisy, Jesus responded:
You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me....
__ Matthew 15:7-9

"This person quotes me on an online religious debating forum, but his heart is far from me; since what he quote of me has nothing to do with the subject matter of what he is discussing, in vain does he quote me".

[JehovahsWitness]

Some atheists and infidel I have personally come accross should be careful their own intolerance for alternative worldviews do not spill over into calls for the censorship of religious instruction in the home;

I think it's extraordinarily telling that you are attempting to recast concern for a child's education as religious intolerance.

It's not a question of "recasting".. . some nontheists come perilously close to implying outsiders should decided what religious beliefs parents should teach their children.

[TRANSPONDER]

Perhaps because the pushing for creationism (never mind Prayer and Bible) to be taught in school, as well as the liking for homeschooling where Bible is taught and evolution is not, could also be represented as religious intolerance. It's always contentious to interfere in what the family teaches their kids, but family is always going to have a big influence on what their children hear in the home. All we can do is ensure that all views get a chance to be heard, outside the home, at least.

[brunumb]

If he understood the source of micro-level changes at the molecular level he would not be able to deny the possibility of macro-level changes.

Huh??

Ohhh, I forgot; atheists are the only ones who can truly understand evolution, because they are sooo smart, and we are sooo dumb.

I had forgot about that fun fact.

When someone can accept micro-level changes but not macro-level changes, both of which have the same essential causes at a molecular level, then they do not understand evolution regardless of their innate intelligence.

[POI]

I mention evolution/abiogenesis only to attack a belief that you have, a belief of which I deem to be false....which is the exact same thing you are doing to me as it relates to the age of the universe.

Now, if you still fail to grasp such a simple concept, then I cannot help you, sir.

I already know you deem them to be false. And I will (again) ask you what I asked you many posts ago...

(Paraphrased) If you had not been indoctrinated early in life, and if you truly do understand what the presented 'evidence' at least represents, would you still think 'evolution' was false? (yes or no)? FYI. Please commit to a yes/no. I think you 'know'

Right, and the question remains... When, and more importantly, how exactly do you know? We'll hopefully get to that below...

How do I know that God created the heavens and the earth?

Answer: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

No. The (3) aforementioned questions under examination. The ages of the earth, of humans, and the flood. How were you able to discern/infer their ages? Thus far, pure assumption?

BTW, you would have to first prove that any state of a "Heaven" exists before you could even begin to shoehorn the Kalam in there We know the "universe" exists. Don't we? Unless we wish to apply solipsism...

Not even Jesus?

Except Jesus.

I guess you stand corrected again?

You could disagree with Kent H. about many things... However, we are discussing the age of (3) things. (i.e.) The age of the earth, the age of humans, and the age of the flood. Do you still disagree with his assessment, regarding the ages of these (3) specific things? yes or no? I would assume you do, but I want to be sure.

When you listen to Kent H., you wont find any hardcore theological stuff being discussed...he mainly focuses on the Bible as it relates to science.

So to answer the question, the only things I disagree with him on (as far as I can tell) is..

1. The age of the universe.
2. The age of mankind.
3. That humans cohabited the earth with dinosaurs.

Remarkably, none of those disagreements are of theological significance.

I'm asking you how you came to the conclusion of the ages of the following below. I could care less if Kent mentions all three of my topics or not. I'm asking you for good reason. I'm trying to get you to align the claims of Genesis with your own logic. If your own logic and Genesis no longer align, then you must either reject Genesis <OR> apply pure blind faith to everything. Telling me you will instead abandon your own logic, means you must then abandon any logic given for Kent H., Christianity, etc You must then merely appeal to blind faith in everything. So, how exactly were you able to assess the age(s) of:

1. earth
2. humans
3. the flood

Did you just pull them out of your keaster? The person you keep mentioning states that everything is 6K. I state they are much older. You state they are somewhere in the middle. You apparently used logic here? If 'science' is wrong, and Kent is also wrong, then the answer could also be that the earth is 5 minutes old or 50 billion years old. So HOW the heck did you come up with (100K - 1M) exactly? Assumption, blind faith. other?

when so much corruption has plagued the system, he is appealing to the Bible, which, as far as he is concerned, has never been proven wrong and has a good track record of being proven right.

So, like I said, for good reasons...just like you feel justified in appealing to your scientific sources for good reasons.

Geology, geography, paleontology, astronomy, archaeology, cosmology, biology, etc etc etc are all in cahoots in the same lie(s)? Why?

Allow me to explain. Your assumption is that humans can only be a certain age because you already assume the earth is only a certain age.

We all have our assumptions, don't we? Just like you also assume the earth is only a certain age.

Negative.

This is not sound reasoning unless you can tell me WHY the earth is nowhere near as old as 'collective science' states. You state you do not go by the Bible. SO what the heck do you reference?

Again, I already answered this...and you wonder my responses get snarky.

I told you that I am led to believe that current scientific dating methods are questionable at best...so your "collective science" dating methodologies mean very little to nothing to me (but more on the very little side).

How do you decide when to apply logic, vs faith? You somehow, using your logic presumably, concluded (100K - 1M). Your logic apparently also told you it is NOT Kent's claims and it is NOT 'sciences' claims. So are you using logic or faith here? If it's faith, then again I ask... How do you decide when to use logic vs faith?

And once you square that little pickle, I then re-ask the same question above and before...

If your own logic does not jive with Genesis, do you discard A) Genesis or B) your own logic? If it's B), then what mechanism did you use?

Each claim needs to be demonstrated, upon it's own merit(s). Again, we are investigating (3) claims.

1. Age of the earth
2. Age of humans
3. Age of the flood

All three need to be independently verified, using 'evidence' to support each individual claim. Meaning, each and every claim above must stand upon it's own, using evidence, as well as then also coinciding with the correct progressive timeline. When all (3) are independently verified, and then placed together, does the timeline match?

Once those dating methods are deemed unreliable (which it has), then it becomes the wild, wild west.

It is anybody's game.

Negative. You have excluded 6K and 4 billion Apparently, for you, it is not anybody's game.

Kent H. simply uses the Bible. I rely upon independent and multi-disciplinary scientific peer review. What do YOU use?

Your ignorance of Kent H. work is glaring. He uses the Bible while simultaneously destroying what you consider "science", and the "peers" that are spewing the theories.

LOL. Kent used pseudoscience, not science. They are not the same

And I have to ask.. What is your definition of "scientific theory"?

Well, apparently Jesus does contact some without them asking

And no one is denying that.

People have also testified that they were living godless lives and they've had either sudden/gradual awakenings without seeking god....again, the great William Lane Craig is one of them.

Like I said, two things can be true at the same time.

Then not only can Jesus contact me, under any circumstances, but your intercessory prayers should be mere formality. So why do I not know a postmortem Jesus exists? Am I stupid, am I lying, or is the Bible false?

Heck, I'm asking you to perform intercessory prayer for me, since He does not seem to respond to me directly. Does He respond to your requests? If so, I will hear from Him. If I do not hear from Him, then maybe you are mistaken, and you are talking to yourself, as Jesus may not actually be answering your prayers. So tell me 'Venom", am I stupid or evil? Because it most certainly CAN'T be that the Bible is mistaken about prayer, can it? The proof will be in the pudding. If I do not hear from Jesus, then Jesus does not answer your prayers either.

"If I do not hear from Jesus, then Jesus does not answer your prayers either"

1. Jesus does not answer my prayers.
2. Therefore, Jesus does not answer your prayers either.

Non sequitur.

Please re-read what I stated.

It goes more like this...

1. Jesus answer your prayers.
2. This means Jesus answers your intercessory prayers as well.
3. You prayed for me.
4. I will likely never perceive any contact from a postmortem Jesus.

Thus, I ask again:

A) I'm stupid?
B) I'm lying?
C) The Bible is wrong about prayer?

I'm going with C), until you can demonstrate otherwise.

[TRANSPONDER]

If he understood the source of micro-level changes at the molecular level he would not be able to deny the possibility of macro-level changes.

Huh??

Ohhh, I forgot; atheists are the only ones who can truly understand evolution, because they are sooo smart, and we are sooo dumb.

I had forgot about that fun fact.

When someone can accept micro-level changes but not macro-level changes, both of which have the same essential causes at a molecular level, then they do not understand evolution regardless of their innate intelligence.

Worse than that, it is denial. Micro becoming macro, because it is the same process of change over a much longer time, is very simple to grasp, but Creationists just push the very concept away, because it is hard to dispute. So they pretend it's something else (interbreeding between species is the usual misrepresentation) or pretend that they can't get what we are talking about, or sometimes say 'there wasn't enough time', which is odd because Ken Ham's model of the situation after the Ark seems to be evolution from basic 'Kinds' to all the species over a mere thousand years. Or as we saw, we get silly comments about how we evolutionists claim to be so smart because we can comprehend a very simple idea, like Micro (given time) can become Macro.

[Difflugia]

I think it's extraordinarily telling that you are attempting to recast concern for a child's education as religious intolerance.

It's not a question of "recasting".. .

Yes it is. Nobody was tallking about censorship before you brought it up.

some nontheists come perilously close to implying outsiders should decided what religious beliefs parents should teach their children.

Are any of those nontheists part of this discussion? If not, your claim is "perilously close" to being a straw man.