Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church

I posted the article because it points out something that many theists can't seem to wrap their heads around--most non-believers don't have some ulterior motive for their non-belief.

For the most part I have no issue with religious people. I am a firm supporter of separation of church and state, however. When religious people attempt to cross that line, I take issue. When they attempt to corrupt science with religious doctrine, that crosses the line. When they attempt to force religion into schools in order to indoctrinate my children, that crosses the line.  

I have no problem with mentioning such conjectures, as long as it's made clear that it is sheer conjecture. In fact, I have no problem mentioning ID, as long as it's made clear that it is pseudoscience. In fact, it might be instructive to spend class time showing what pseudoscience looks like, to help reinforce what true science is. In high school, though, there are probably better uses of limited class time.

Whether or not it is science is crucial to whether or not it is religion. If it is science, then it is not religion.

You can do nothing on your own.

But it is not wrong to say you can do nothing on your own. You can't even live on your own. Your very existence was given to you and is sustained by God.

Okay, now I see what you're driving at. No, I don't think this is at all an accurate portrayal for several reasons. First of all, what percentage of religious adherents are  purely atheistic and choose their religion based on its menu of prohibitions? Have you ever met anyone who, when asked, "how did you choose your religion," said "I looked at what I was allowed to do, and when I found one I could put up with, I decided that must be true?" Compare that number to, say, the number of Christians who had Christian parents. And no, Christians expressly DO NOT have to embrace the sin concept, it's like the leading thing they love about Jesus! He sucked all those sins up for them! You must be aware of the doctrine "once saved, always saved." Similarly, no atheist says "I sort of believe in God, but if I could only jack off without him getting so mad...you know what, I'll be an atheist, solved!" {ZIP!} I misunderstood what you were implying about premarital sex, I thought you were saying that Christians are super moral because they're monogamists (they're not, as the bible shows) and therefore they don't have premarital sex (they do, as every study about the topic ever conducted shows). 

ID shouldn't be taught in science class because it isn't science, as it cannot be tested or demonstrated. As far as "it opens up too many questions," that's half the problem: it opens up too many questions that do not have answers that can be...TESTED OR DEMONSTRATED. I would sure love to hear you detail what you think the ID portion of science would sound like as a teacher, and what EXACTLY it teaches. What does it explain? Don't confuse how with why, here, a common issue. "How does the sun shine" and "Why does the sun shine" have exactly the same answer. "How was the earth created" and "Why was the earth created" do not. Okay, so we can leave it out of science entirely as it is not in any way subject to the examination of the scientific method, agree? Let's look at it in a philosophical but non-denominational way.

Philosophically, "the cosmos might have been created by an intelligent agent" is as far as you can go in a public school, you figure, in order to be fair to all faiths. Okay, so then what would a universe with a creator look like and why? The WHY is the philosophical portion, as far as I can tell. How would a philosophy teacher help students learn to think about this portion? You won't like the answers. I'm all for including it in philosophical

discussion, but I bet that only wins more converts to atheism, at least among the critical thinking crowd. We can play the questions out if you like, but

you never seemed to enjoy that as much as I do, and you disappear when I do it, and I like having you around. 

I wonder if you'll feel the same as an old man who has others changing his diapers.

Sounds to me like what guides your beliefnis a personal sense of aesthetics.

People become believers for multiple reasons. Like I said in a recent post, probably most Americans have at one point in time at least contemplated becoming a Christian. Probably even Aron Ra. If they were consistently die-hard atheists from the day they were born, they would never have contemplated it. And the fact that they didn't become believers means they must have had a reason not to. I think I provided some of the reasons amongst multiple reasons.

As far as Once Saved, Always Saved, I know what it's like to backslide. It's a painful experience. The idea that anyone can get away with sin, even if 

they died and were allowed in heaven, is completely false. Paul actually warns believers that if they're conscience is not seared while sinning, check themselves to make sure they really are in the faith. This is all explained in texts referring to hearing God's voice, and knowing God's voice, and being chastened. God doesn't chasten non-believers just like a parent doesn't chasten another parent's child.

Someone who would know the parameters for instance in a religion sensitive educational system.

For the most part, the teaching of ID would really actually focus more on teaching evolution, except broaden the teaching to include the negatives of evolution.

. Where I think some of the confusion about teaching  ID originates is from the idea the professor would give scientific insight into how a creator would create/design the universe (creator mixes 'A' with 'B', and produces 'C', the universe). Obviously that's not what it's about.

 They may pose the question to Christians and various types of theists what they believe, and why?

atheists: what do they think the possibility of there being a creator/designer is?

What are the possibilities of a deistic creator who only set the motion for the development of our universe through a big bang? 

 Would a deistic creator who only lit the spark for naturalistic evolution to take place be as, or any less probable than any other unproven theory designed to solve puzzles/mysteries like multiverse and the string theories, and why?

Could this creator actually have been involved with designing the universe, or only limited to setting the stage for natural evolution? 

If the creator may have designed the universe, how would that affect their view on evolution if this were the case? 

I would just like to point out that we Orthodox never had a "once saved always saved" doctrine, and that this is a Calvinist innovation. John Calvin himself was not Orthodox, and many of his teachings are directly at odds with what the church has always taught.

I'm saying that you determine your  beliefs based on whether or not it sounds nice to you.