50% of Christian College students no longer "born again Christians" after graduation

[KarenCee 3]

THe article actually has a nonsensical assumption as its basis--that the subjects were ever "born-again" in the first place. It is simply impossible for a Christian who actually is "born-again" to regress (or apostasise).

So, any 'born-again' who does regress was never truly 'born-again'? Is that what you are saying?

The way I see this line is more like: We are in a constant battle. Even Peter denied Jesus. Not once, not twice, but three times in a matter of hours.

So really, it does not surprise me that Christian, of whatever branch, go through different phases. As it applies to the article, it looks downright correct. Some are able to keep on the road. Others veer off. Some of those that veered off may eventually get back on.

have a nice day.

Daniel

:energetic:

gotta agree with Daniel on this one.

I think it's very possible for someone who is very devoted to their walk and consider themselves born again to turn away from it later on. I personally have known many like that, and they really were devoted to God at some point but later something made them want to turn away and reject their faith. That's sad to me of course. But I wouldn't say they were never born again. They were, and had then turned away from it. Some go back again, some don't. It's a doctrinal difference I guess. I don't believe in 'once saved, always saved'.

Sometimes it's the things done to one by "christians" all in the name of "christianity" that can be a reason for turning away from a belief you've held for a long time. It can cause you to question everything, and make you wonder what you believe in anymore...or if you believe in anything at all.

[ceriserose 1]

THe article actually has a nonsensical assumption as its basis--that the subjects were ever "born-again" in the first place. It is simply impossible for a Christian who actually is "born-again" to regress (or apostasise).

So, any 'born-again' who does regress was never truly 'born-again'? Is that what you are saying?

The way I see this line is more like: We are in a constant battle. Even Peter denied Jesus. Not once, not twice, but three times in a matter of hours.

So really, it does not surprise me that Christian, of whatever branch, go through different phases. As it applies to the article, it looks downright correct. Some are able to keep on the road. Others veer off. Some of those that veered off may eventually get back on.

have a nice day.

Daniel

:energetic:

gotta agree with Daniel on this one.

I think it's very possible for someone who is very devoted to their walk and consider themselves born again to turn away from it later on. I personally have known many like that, and they really were devoted to God at some point but later something made them want to turn away and reject their faith. That's sad to me of course. But I wouldn't say they were never born again. They were, and had then turned away from it. Some go back again, some don't. It's a doctrinal difference I guess. I don't believe in 'once saved, always saved'.

Sometimes it's the things done to one by "christians" all in the name of "christianity" that can be a reason for turning away from a belief you've held for a long time. It can cause you to question everything, and make you wonder what you believe in anymore...or if you believe in anything at all.

You know, that's an interesting thought. I wonder how many of these who supposedly "fell away" or "rejected Christianity" were not rejecting God or Christ per se, but were rejecting the religious 'stuff' that oftentimes gets in the way of their relationship with their diety of choice. I wonder how many of them believe that by not being part of a specific religious body, despite that fact that they may still feel a relationship with God or Christ, would describe themselves as 'fallen away'. Especially if it had been indoctrinated in them that a person cannot have a relationship with God without the Church...

[PlatyPius 5]

I haven't read any of the replies to this yet. I read the first post, saw the typical mind-set that pisses me off, and typed this reply. So, I apologize in advance if this is redundant.

But what students and parents don’t realize is that today’s campuses are functioning as an indoctrination into the realm of liberalism. As early as the 1790s, Yale college students were openly disavowing Christ. Despite periods of revival, the denial of Christian beliefs and the acceptance of secularism have persisted and gained strength through the years.

I like to believe - and this was my case - that education rises one above the need for folk tales, myths, and threats of punishment for not being "moral". (Is it really moral if there's a punishment involved? Shouldn't a moral choice be made without coersion either way?)

However, I do agree that college campuses are FAR too liberal.

In his book University of Destruction, David Wheaton cites research by Dr. Gary Railsback and the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. Wheaton wrote, “Depending on the type of college attended, as many as 51% of students who claimed to be ‘born-again Christians’ as freshmen said they were no longer born-again Christians four years later.”

Seems to support my belief that Education = Ability to think for oneself = no need for fables.

... he explained. “[After all], what is the purpose of education, if not to use it for Him?”

Hmmm.... to better YOURSELF? To get a better job? To make a difference in THIS world?

“t was hard [for people] to believe that somebody, some educated, intelligent person believed in God, believed in Jesus Christ and was willing to talk about it,” he explained. “I think it represents [that] a lot of people haven’t heard the Gospel – even in our country.”

What a moron. You know what it REALLY means? That we've heard too MUCH about that #######, and really just want y'all to shut up. How can there be a single American who hasn't heard of it? There's a church on every corner! There's a protest outside every store that advertises an "Xmas Sale". I think we've heard enough, really.

Edited August 19, 2006 by Cian

[KarenCee 3]

THe article actually has a nonsensical assumption as its basis--that the subjects were ever "born-again" in the first place. It is simply impossible for a Christian who actually is "born-again" to regress (or apostasise).

So, any 'born-again' who does regress was never truly 'born-again'? Is that what you are saying?

The way I see this line is more like: We are in a constant battle. Even Peter denied Jesus. Not once, not twice, but three times in a matter of hours.

So really, it does not surprise me that Christian, of whatever branch, go through different phases. As it applies to the article, it looks downright correct. Some are able to keep on the road. Others veer off. Some of those that veered off may eventually get back on.

have a nice day.

Daniel

:energetic:

gotta agree with Daniel on this one.

I think it's very possible for someone who is very devoted to their walk and consider themselves born again to turn away from it later on. I personally have known many like that, and they really were devoted to God at some point but later something made them want to turn away and reject their faith. That's sad to me of course. But I wouldn't say they were never born again. They were, and had then turned away from it. Some go back again, some don't. It's a doctrinal difference I guess. I don't believe in 'once saved, always saved'.

Sometimes it's the things done to one by "christians" all in the name of "christianity" that can be a reason for turning away from a belief you've held for a long time. It can cause you to question everything, and make you wonder what you believe in anymore...or if you believe in anything at all.

You know, that's an interesting thought. I wonder how many of these who supposedly "fell away" or "rejected Christianity" were not rejecting God or Christ per se, but were rejecting the religious 'stuff' that oftentimes gets in the way of their relationship with their diety of choice. I wonder how many of them believe that by not being part of a specific religious body, despite that fact that they may still feel a relationship with God or Christ, would describe themselves as 'fallen away'. Especially if it had been indoctrinated in them that a person cannot have a relationship with God without the Church...

You said exactly what I wanted to say...just couldn't think of it at the time. Thanks Cerise.

I do not believe that one MUST be a part of the "church" to believe in God, or whatever deity one chooses to believe in. However, according to the "baptist" faith (sorry if I offend anyone) believes that you must be an active member to be a true christian. To not be active is to be labeled "backslidden" and not in the will of God. The baptist expect one to accept the teachings of its leaders without question...to question the teachings is in essence questioning God...and that, my friend, is a sin. One must accept without question the bible and all its teachings as well. It's been my experience that many "baptists" pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to adhere to, which allows them to misinterpret and apply bits and pieces in their own lives, thereby giving them the "right" to do whatever to whomever because "the bible says it".

[Mirorgate 0]

You know, that's an interesting thought. I wonder how many of these who supposedly "fell away" or "rejected Christianity" were not rejecting God or Christ per se, but were rejecting the religious 'stuff' that oftentimes gets in the way of their relationship with their diety of choice. I wonder how many of them believe that by not being part of a specific religious body, despite that fact that they may still feel a relationship with God or Christ, would describe themselves as 'fallen away'. Especially if it had been indoctrinated in them that a person cannot have a relationship with God without the Church...

that christians hold eachother (and the ministers) to an urealistic (humanly impossible) unobtainable expectation.. and then when they dont fit they "crucify them?? :o

in actuality.. christians at times are their own worst enemies. we shoot our own suffering and turn away from the weak and needing. I despise organized religion... IMO Christ called us to follow his example... he didnt call us to be "methodists, catholics, lutherans, et al"

[ceriserose 1]

THe article actually has a nonsensical assumption as its basis--that the subjects were ever "born-again" in the first place. It is simply impossible for a Christian who actually is "born-again" to regress (or apostasise).

So, any 'born-again' who does regress was never truly 'born-again'? Is that what you are saying?

The way I see this line is more like: We are in a constant battle. Even Peter denied Jesus. Not once, not twice, but three times in a matter of hours.

So really, it does not surprise me that Christian, of whatever branch, go through different phases. As it applies to the article, it looks downright correct. Some are able to keep on the road. Others veer off. Some of those that veered off may eventually get back on.

have a nice day.

Daniel

:energetic:

gotta agree with Daniel on this one.

I think it's very possible for someone who is very devoted to their walk and consider themselves born again to turn away from it later on. I personally have known many like that, and they really were devoted to God at some point but later something made them want to turn away and reject their faith. That's sad to me of course. But I wouldn't say they were never born again. They were, and had then turned away from it. Some go back again, some don't. It's a doctrinal difference I guess. I don't believe in 'once saved, always saved'.

Sometimes it's the things done to one by "christians" all in the name of "christianity" that can be a reason for turning away from a belief you've held for a long time. It can cause you to question everything, and make you wonder what you believe in anymore...or if you believe in anything at all.

You know, that's an interesting thought. I wonder how many of these who supposedly "fell away" or "rejected Christianity" were not rejecting God or Christ per se, but were rejecting the religious 'stuff' that oftentimes gets in the way of their relationship with their diety of choice. I wonder how many of them believe that by not being part of a specific religious body, despite that fact that they may still feel a relationship with God or Christ, would describe themselves as 'fallen away'. Especially if it had been indoctrinated in them that a person cannot have a relationship with God without the Church...

You said exactly what I wanted to say...just couldn't think of it at the time. Thanks Cerise.

I do not believe that one MUST be a part of the "church" to believe in God, or whatever deity one chooses to believe in. However, according to the "baptist" faith (sorry if I offend anyone) believes that you must be an active member to be a true christian. To not be active is to be labeled "backslidden" and not in the will of God. The baptist expect one to accept the teachings of its leaders without question...to question the teachings is in essence questioning God...and that, my friend, is a sin. One must accept without question the bible and all its teachings as well. It's been my experience that many "baptists" pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to adhere to, which allows them to misinterpret and apply bits and pieces in their own lives, thereby giving them the "right" to do whatever to whomever because "the bible says it".

You -did- say it.

It's not just the Baptist faith that tends to that. (Note that's as a whole, individuals may respond differently.)

I think within the "Church" there is always that tendency to behave as if the only absolute path to God is via their congregation/priests/etc, and for a variety of reasons that is a belief that most will promote. I know that that is a Scriptural interpretation and who knows, they could be right. But until Church A can agree with Church B it's hard to determine just which Church is the "true" path to God. Each person who's chosen one of course feels it's theirs...

As for picking and choosing parts of the Bible - one of my pet peeves - also not just Baptists. If a person believes God is the same God in the OT and the NT, and that He authored the book, and maintained it through the ages because it's important enough to guide our lives to the eternal blessing of heaven, you bet your bippy that everything in that book is there for a reason.

[KarenCee 3]

You -did- say it.

It's not just the Baptist faith that tends to that. (Note that's as a whole, individuals may respond differently.)

I think within the "Church" there is always that tendency to behave as if the only absolute path to God is via their congregation/priests/etc, and for a variety of reasons that is a belief that most will promote. I know that that is a Scriptural interpretation and who knows, they could be right. But until Church A can agree with Church B it's hard to determine just which Church is the "true" path to God. Each person who's chosen one of course feels it's theirs...

As for picking and choosing parts of the Bible - one of my pet peeves - also not just Baptists. If a person believes God is the same God in the OT and the NT, and that He authored the book, and maintained it through the ages because it's important enough to guide our lives to the eternal blessing of heaven, you bet your bippy that everything in that book is there for a reason.

Yeah, you're right...its not predominatly the baptists who are this way...I guess I'm just responding from personal experience. I was taught that the baptist church was the "only church" that is the true church of God. I'm also sure there are some who aren't as rigid as this...I just personally haven't met any.

To respond to Mirorgate...you are so right. Christians can be their own worst enemies...treating their own as the pariah of society for failing to conform to their standards. They can be most judgmental, espeically to one of their own who has fallen or become weak...which is really sad, because I can't see Jesus ever being so self righteous. That, IMHO isn't being "christlike".

[*Robert* 2]

So now there's a litmus test for those who are truly "born again"?!!!

Give me a f'ing break!!!

[Mirorgate 0]

So now there's a litmus test for those who are truly "born again"?!!!

Give me a f'ing break!!!

you... have chosen poorly

[ceriserose 1]

So now there's a litmus test for those who are truly "born again"?!!!

Give me a f'ing break!!!

you... have chosen poorly

Stop.quoting.movies.

I don't have time to watch all these, darnit!

[pedroh 21]

is it a requirement to be 'born again christian' in order to be a good christian? or is it like a sect or something.. my 'american family' is methodist.. my MIL is a pastor actually, and I've never heard anything like born again christian, is that another subdivision of christianism? like baptists or mormons or episcopals etc?

[ceriserose 1]

is it a requirement to be 'born again christian' in order to be a good christian? or is it like a sect or something.. my 'american family' is methodist.. my MIL is a pastor actually, and I've never heard anything like born again christian, is that another subdivision of christianism? like baptists or mormons or episcopals etc?

We had a huge discussion on the term 'born again' in the old forums. I believe the end result was that some Christians use the term as a distinct relgious sect (i.e. saying "I'm born-again" is like saying "I'm Catholic" or "I'm Lutheran"), while other Christians use the term to encompass anyone who is in receipt of Christ's spirit/God's blessing through baptism (born again unto the Lord as the scriptures indicate).

I don't think there was ever a consensus about it. So depending on who you speak to (identifying themself as a Christian), they will use this term in different ways.

[KarenCee 3]

is it a requirement to be 'born again christian' in order to be a good christian? or is it like a sect or something.. my 'american family' is methodist.. my MIL is a pastor actually, and I've never heard anything like born again christian, is that another subdivision of christianism? like baptists or mormons or episcopals etc?

I was taught that the term "born again" meant you had received the gift of salvation and was no longer headed for damnation.

[Mirorgate 0]

Stop.quoting.movies.

I don't have time to watch all these, darnit!

tell me. what do you see for the future..?

[ceriserose 1]

Stop.quoting.movies.

I don't have time to watch all these, darnit!

tell me. what do you see for the future..?

Hah! I don't know that one. Neener neener!

is it a requirement to be 'born again christian' in order to be a good christian? or is it like a sect or something.. my 'american family' is methodist.. my MIL is a pastor actually, and I've never heard anything like born again christian, is that another subdivision of christianism? like baptists or mormons or episcopals etc?

I was taught that the term "born again" meant you had received the gift of salvation and was no longer headed for damnation.

And so that leads to the question of when one is saved is he/she always saved? If a person then 'falls away' is the gift of salvation renounced? (Those were rhetorical...not looking for answers, really. ) Different Christians will reply differently to that one too. I think even on this thread. (The last 2 days here are a blur though... )

I've met people who believe that there is salvation but also apostastization from that should they fall away from the faith.

I've met people who will call themselves born again and mean it as a specific sect. And some of them (not all) interpret it as always saved.

What I'm unsure of still, despite that long discussion in the old forums, is how a Christian who believes one thing about it views a Christian who believes another. This is a pretty fundamental tenet of any belief system and I can't see this being a kind of scenario where it can peacefull co-exist. But then I do admit I don't know everything.