Why don't christians know more?

[trvlr2]

So, bluto- we have groups of people proclaiming themselves xtian, no creedism, no literal bible, some literal bible, some interpreted bible,some creedism;essentially ,no agreement on exactly WHAT this true scot/xtian is?
And yet, all xtians/scots?We need at least a definition.

How about azure & yourself & ceo telling me exactly what it is you do bleeve?
Or don't you know?

 

[bruto]

So, bluto- we have groups of people proclaiming themselves xtian, no creedism, no literal bible, some literal bible, some interpreted bible,some creedism;essentially ,no agreement on exactly WHAT this true scot/xtian is?
And yet, all xtians/scots?We need at least a definition.

How about azure & yourself & ceo telling me exactly what it is you do bleeve?
Or don't you know?

What does it matter what I believe? I have no faith. I was brought up Christian (by local standards, if not by Kimpatsu's), but since I think a minimal requirement of Christianity is that one believe in a deity at least roughly resembling the Jehovah of the bible, it didn't take. I'm disputing Kimpatsu's initial generalization that in "all sects of the christian cult" individual interpretation is forbidden, and his later contention when this assertion was contradicted, that Christians who do not conform to his assertion aren't really Christians; that nobody can be called a Christian without an obligatory creed and biblical fundamentalism, although he does so in part by redefining terms, and then even redefining literal interpretation of the bible to include non-literal interpretation of the bible if the Pope does it. Obviously, many people consider themselves Christian, and are considered Christian by others, who do not meet Kimpatsu's definition. I am not defending Christianity or professing it, only objecting to Kimpatsu's sloppiness.

 

[Kimpatsu]

I think you've misunderstood, or misread, me, Bruto. I never argued that one had to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible to be a Xian. I did say, however, that you needed to believe in the deity revealed by the Bible, and the fact that the revelation of said deity is open to interpretation proves that the revelation itself is not divine, for that would be perfect and unquestionable. That you have to accept the divinity of Christ as an article of faith is obvious if you claim to be a Xian. And such acceptance is clearly dogma. So don't go putting words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate the earlier ad hom. either.

 

[The Atheist]

I think one of the biggest things that people need to realize is that there's knowledge about Christianity, and then there's knowledge............. Unfortunately, those guys seem to get less of the limelight than the newer guys that crop up and say, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

Marc

Hear, hear.

Can I quote that on my site?

Cheers.

 

[bruto]

I think you've misunderstood, or misread, me, Bruto. I never argued that one had to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible to be a Xian. I did say, however, that you needed to believe in the deity revealed by the Bible, and the fact that the revelation of said deity is open to interpretation proves that the revelation itself is not divine, for that would be perfect and unquestionable. That you have to accept the divinity of Christ as an article of faith is obvious if you claim to be a Xian. And such acceptance is clearly dogma. So don't go putting words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate the earlier ad hom. either.

You wrote:

If the sect isn't creedal, and doesn't accept the Bible as literally true, then wTF makes it Xianity?

If I misread that as suggesting what it says then I apologize.

The fact that Teller reamed out a bad Methodist doesn't mean that the Methodist Church is not a Christian Church either.

 

[ceo_esq]

And yet, all xtians/scots?We need at least a definition.

How about azure & yourself & ceo telling me exactly what it is you do bleeve?
Or don't you know?

I'm not Christian, or a religious believer of any sort, so what's the relevance here of what I "bleeve"?

 

[Marc L]

Hear, hear.

Can I quote that on my site?

Cheers.

Go for it :0)

Marc

 

[davefoc]

The word Christian has a variety of meanings depending on the context. The goal of finding the definitive definition is doomed to failure because there are numerous legitimate definitions of the word, "Christian".

By at least some common definitions, no belief in the supernatural is required at all. If you go to church and belong to a Christian denomination you are Christian. Similarly, in other contexts, you don't even need to go to church, have any belief in the supernatural, or belong to any denomination, you just need to be part of a Christian culture and you are Christian.

In some contexts Christian is defined as somebody with a particular set of beliefs. That is a reasonable thing to do, but the inevitable result is that some group that is obviously Christian by some definitions in some contexts will be excluded.

While, I am not a believer, I don't see in any of this a basis for criticizing or mocking Christians. Some of this, of course, points to the idea that Christians have very divergent views and that might be part of a circumstantial case that the case for Christianity isn't all that strong. But just because Christians believe different things doesn't mean that some of them aren't right.

One somewhat related question to this topic is what do actual Christians think about the trinity. I know that they hear the term "Father, Son and Holy Ghost", often. But do they think about it and what do they think about it? This whole thing seems like a strange add on to Christianity to me.

 

[Euromutt]

[...] For the most part, the Christians I run into are like that. They know the basics of their beliefs, and they're content, and, for the most part, they're fairly decent people. Should they question their beliefs? Maybe. Should we confront these guys? Not really. They are, for the most part, harmless. My mother-in-law is one of these, and she's good people.

That's a fair characterization, and I'd be inclined to agree were it not for that ugly thing called politics. The problem, in my opinion, occurs when people like this--for the overwhelming part, as you say, good, decent people--support some piece of legislation that intrudes upon the freedom of others because they have been led to believe that God demands they do so, unaware of the fact that in actual fact, it is their church that demands it, and often does on the basis of extremely contrived interpretations of scripture.

It is revealing that one of the greatest blows the Catholic church suffered in recent history was the result of Vatican II being televized. Catholics could watch cardinals arguing with each other over interpretation, and came to realize that what their local priest had been telling them all those years wasn't the unquestioned word of God but merely man-made church doctrine.

 

[davefoc]

Marc L. wrote:

My mother-in-law is one of these, and she's good people

My thoughts about my mother-in-law also, but that doesn't mean that hanging with my monther-n-law is all that high on my list of favorite things to do.

 

[bruto]

The word Christian has a variety of meanings depending on the context. The goal of finding the definitive definition is doomed to failure because there are numerous legitimate definitions of the word, "Christian".

By at least some common definitions, no belief in the supernatural is required at all. If you go to church and belong to a Christian denomination you are Christian. Similarly, in other contexts, you don't even need to go to church, have any belief in the supernatural, or belong to any denomination, you just need to be part of a Christian culture and you are Christian.

In some contexts Christian is defined as somebody with a particular set of beliefs. That is a reasonable thing to do, but the inevitable result is that some group that is obviously Christian by some definitions in some contexts will be excluded.

While, I am not a believer, I don't see in any of this a basis for criticizing or mocking Christians. Some of this, of course, points to the idea that Christians have very divergent views and that might be part of a circumstantial case that the case for Christianity isn't all that strong. But just because Christians believe different things doesn't mean that some of them aren't right.

One somewhat related question to this topic is what do actual Christians think about the trinity. I know that they hear the term "Father, Son and Holy Ghost", often. But do they think about it and what do they think about it? This whole thing seems like a strange add on to Christianity to me.

Back when I was a kid trying to figure out whether or not I was cut out to be a Christian, the trinity was one of the big stumbling blocks. Of course one could become a Unitarian (that's what distinguishes them, or did once), but since the next stumbling block was having to believe in a deity more or less resembling the one in the bible, I decided the trinity wasn't worth the effort anyway. I agree, though, it's a strange add-on and seems unnecessary even if one were able to accept the idea of that nasty old bastard Jehovah, and even if you believe that Jesus walked the earth and was a divine being.

As you do, I think there are quite enough good reasons to reject Christianity, or any religion, without misrepresenting what it is or mocking those who accept it. The latitude in the definition of Christianity seems a fault to some (including some Christians), but a strength to others. Perhaps because of my upbringing and cultural bias I see it as a strength, though not always for good. The same breadth that allows Christians to coexist peacefully, often even in the same congregation, with widely divergent views, also allows sects with widely divergent views on some subjects to gang up when they find common ground, and achieve political clout in issues such as abortion and creationism.

 

[Kimpatsu]

You wrote:


If I misread that as suggesting what it says then I apologize.

The fact that Teller reamed out a bad Methodist doesn't mean that the Methodist Church is not a Christian Church either.

But by what definition of Xian? If you don't accept Christ's divinity, how does that make Methodism a specifically Xian cult?

 

[Kimpatsu]

The word Christian has a variety of meanings depending on the context. The goal of finding the definitive definition is doomed to failure because there are numerous legitimate definitions of the word, "Christian".

By at least some common definitions, no belief in the supernatural is required at all. If you go to church and belong to a Christian denomination you are Christian. Similarly, in other contexts, you don't even need to go to church, have any belief in the supernatural, or belong to any denomination, you just need to be part of a Christian culture and you are Christian.

Dave, by definition "Christian" is one who accepts the divinity of Christ, which is a supernatural belief. A non-theistic Xian is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Kimpatsu]

My thoughts about my mother-in-law also, but that doesn't mean that hanging with my mother-in-law is all that high on my list of favorite things to do.

Ah, but actually hanging your mother-in-law is right up there at Number 1...

 

[Marc L]

Dave, by definition "Christian" is one who accepts the divinity of Christ, which is a supernatural belief. A non-theistic Xian is a contradiction in terms.

Not necessarily. The Gnostics didn't believe Christ was a divine being, and they're still considered Christians. In fact it wasn't for a couple centuries after Christianity's founding that he was officially considered a divine being.

I got to admit, I used to agree with you. I used to think that a divine Christ was required for being a Christian. These days, I'd say it's more the acceptance of Christ's teaching and of him as an authority that is required.

Marc

 

[fuelair]

There is something that never fails to amaze me. It's how little christians often know about their own religion. Not necessarly controversial stuff, but things that are known facts and which the church admits to.

You would think that as an atheist, I'd be less knowledgable about the bible and christian history. And many Christians attack me as "Well, how can you know? You're an Atheist!" or even "You don't believe because you're uneducated about the faith"


Examples:

I told someone Christ was not born on December 25th. That the day was just chosen. They said "Of course he was." I explained that the Church would admit that there is no known date and that the date was chosen for other reasons. I challanged them to find a date in the bible. FInally they said "it's just an artical of faith."

Faith??? Damnit! No it's not. It's not an actual belief. It's just the day chosen to....ug forget ti.


Other examples:

The "Rapture" is not in the bible and was first mentioned in the middle ages... based on loose biblical interpertation.

The versions of hell cited by christians are often taken from Dante's Inferno...not the bible.

"Pergatory" or "Limbo" the place you go when you die and have not been baptised or need to be obsolved from sin... well...it is not in the bible and the Catholic Church (which invented it) now has taken it back...

The bible was not contiguously written. It was put togeather from books floating around. The others (gospal of thomas, judas ect) were banished. Some, however have turned up again.

Jesus is said in the bible to have had brothers and sisters. This doesn't fit well with the whole virgin thing...so the chruch rebranded them as step-brothers. It doesn't say that anywhere though.


There are many many more

Don't they read their DAMN Bible???

As intended by the church originally, they don't read they listen to their preachers' interpretation.

 

[Obsequious]

Perhaps this is a slight derail, but:

Oh, for critical thinking to be taught in schools.

I see people post this fairly often. Critical thinking was taught when I was in high school (late 1990s), but it was only taught in science classes. Naturally, it was also taught in a manner that was clunky, hokey, off-putting, limited in application only to science class, and we were not encouraged to attempt to use it in real-world scenarios or even in other classes.

If I remember correctly (I may not), there were also "critical thinking" sections in English textbooks and on some standardized tests that bore no resemblence to the science class version. The questions were ridiculously open-ended with only one acceptable "correct" answer. There was no discussion of what "critical thinking" meant or how it worked. By inference from the context, it meant reading what experts thought and regurgitating their answers on cue.

Once I was out of high school, I didn't think about critical thinking again until I encountered Mr. Randi and this board, which painted it in an entirely different light than when it was first taught to me in school; that is, as useful, important to daily life, and something I was already doing before it was mentioned to me in school.

(Gadzooks, it's getting my back up just thinking about how it was presented in school. And I feel like a pretentious wanker talking about it. Is this a common reaction or am I just being crazy?)

My point is, if you're going to ask for it to be taught in schools, you need to be more specific about how it should be taught unless you want it twisted into uselessness.

/derail

 

[ceo_esq]

In fact it wasn't for a couple centuries after Christianity's founding that he was officially considered a divine being.

Not sure what you'd require for "officially", but among those communities that considered Jesus an object of religious devotion, belief in his divinity prevailed almost from the beginning. Later pronouncements to that effect were simply a recognition of what had consistently been the near-universal orthodoxy.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Not necessarily. The Gnostics didn't believe Christ was a divine being, and they're still considered Christians. In fact it wasn't for a couple centuries after Christianity's founding that he was officially considered a divine being.
I got to admit, I used to agree with you. I used to think that a divine Christ was required for being a Christian. These days, I'd say it's more the acceptance of Christ's teaching and of him as an authority that is required.
Marc

The problem with that, Marc, is that Christ never existed, so the canon of behaviour one follows as a "Xian" cannot be attributed to Christ. But then, clarity of thought is not an issue among the superstitious.
Interestingly, there's an Anabaptist church near where I used to live in South London whose "elders" (their term for priests) maintained that Gnostics were not Xians as they didn't accept Christ's divinity. Maybe we should put the Elders nd the Gnostics in a room together and let them slug it out...

 

[Kimpatsu]

Perhaps this is a slight derail, but:



I see people post this fairly often. Critical thinking was taught when I was in high school (late 1990s), but it was only taught in science classes. Naturally, it was also taught in a manner that was clunky, hokey, off-putting, limited in application only to science class, and we were not encouraged to attempt to use it in real-world scenarios or even in other classes.

If I remember correctly (I may not), there were also "critical thinking" sections in English textbooks and on some standardized tests that bore no resemblence to the science class version. The questions were ridiculously open-ended with only one acceptable "correct" answer. There was no discussion of what "critical thinking" meant or how it worked. By inference from the context, it meant reading what experts thought and regurgitating their answers on cue.

Once I was out of high school, I didn't think about critical thinking again until I encountered Mr. Randi and this board, which painted it in an entirely different light than when it was first taught to me in school; that is, as useful, important to daily life, and something I was already doing before it was mentioned to me in school.

(Gadzooks, it's getting my back up just thinking about how it was presented in school. And I feel like a pretentious wanker talking about it. Is this a common reaction or am I just being crazy?)

My point is, if you're going to ask for it to be taught in schools, you need to be more specific about how it should be taught unless you want it twisted into uselessness.

/derail

Oh, sure, the details need to be worked out, but I was thinking something along the lines of the courses Hal Bidlack used to teach before his retirement earlier this year.