Why don't christians know more?

[Jeremy]

When I was a believer I went to a baptist church for many years. I had a lot of trust in our church because it was not closely affiliated to any central organisation. The pastors were chosen by consesus with the deacons, elders and congregation. When the pastor was on hols or ill, any congregation member could be invited to preach in his place. the congregation was encouraged to have bibles to hande to cross check anything said by a preacher. If and when the got it wrong there were people well versed enough to stand up and say "err, I think you might be wrong on that one" right in the middle of the sermon. There were lots of individual groups of bible study and tricky issues like JC's brothers weren't shied from. (Our church saw no problem at all with JC's brothers. JC was eldest and from virgin birth, the others came after via more conventional fertilisatiojn processes!)

From my experiences with Baptists, they seem to be at least internally consistent. Of course, this drives them to insane extremes (creationism) which puts them at odds with reality.

 

[ceo_esq]

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.

There are certainly some Christians who are woefully ignorant about their own religion (and other religions). Largely due to these forums, frankly, I'm exposed more to the ignorance of other nonbelievers than to the ignorance of Christians. I tend to agree with Stamenflicker that what you're talking about is symptomatic of general ignorance. I don't mean to exclude myself from this assessment - I know very little indeed of everything there is to be known about the Bible, Christian theology, etc.

Other examples:

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

Yes, I agree that many fundamentalists and evangelicals are not aware of, or refuse to accept, the fact that there is really no Biblical support for the doctrine of the rapture as they hold it. However, I am aware of no discussion of the rapture as such (specifically, a pre-tribulational event by that name) until the first part of the 19th century. No one in the Middle Ages would have heard of such a thing (although the fundies actually drew the name itself from a word that appears in the Latin Vulgate: rapiemur, "we will be caught up").

"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...

As some others have pointed out, that conflates the two distinct notions of Purgatory and Limbo. Purgatory, according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia, is "a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions." Limbo (or more specifically the limbus infantium) is a conjectural place or condition for those who die in a state of Original Sin but without any grievous personal sin; they have often been thought to be excluded both from the beatific vision and from the pains of Hell.

One important difference between these concepts is that Purgatory is part of Catholic doctrine and thus has very little prospect of ever being "taken back", whereas Limbo was never more than an unofficial speculation by certain theologians which has at no time (to my knowledge) been formally articulated as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Therefore, although it's true that the Church has made recent moves to review and revise theological theories on the topic, there really is nothing for the Church to "take back" in that regard.

I would add that, if one takes the premises of the Bible as true, it is not difficult to infer the existence of Purgatory therefrom. To that extent, although Purgatory is not mentioned in the Bible as such, it is, arguably, strongly implied by what is in the Bible.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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.

They tend to know even less (as if that were possible) about other religions. And know no Middle Eastern and European history that has not been filtered though church-centred eyes.

The claim that Jesus is somehow unique always amuses me -- he is just one of hundreds of other "god men" of history -- some of whom have far more evidence for their existence than does JC. The "historical evidence" for JC that Xians always trot out consists of half a dozen references -- none which provide any direct evidence for his existence what-so-ever.

Gord

 

[Kimpatsu]

There are certainly some Christians who are woefully ignorant about their own religion (and other religions). Largely due to these forums, frankly, I'm exposed more to the ignorance of other nonbelievers than to the ignorance of Christians.

And how much attention do you think the Japanese, for example, pay to Xianity? And yet they, and billions of other Asians, lead perfectly moral secular lives. Something they, or Xians for that matter, would be unable to do if they actually followed the tenets explicitly described in the Bible.

 

[ceo_esq]

There are certainly some Christians who are woefully ignorant about their own religion (and other religions). Largely due to these forums, frankly, I'm exposed more to the ignorance of other nonbelievers than to the ignorance of Christians.

And how much attention do you think the Japanese, for example, pay to Xianity? And yet they, and billions of other Asians, lead perfectly moral secular lives. Something they, or Xians for that matter, would be unable to do if they actually followed the tenets explicitly described in the Bible.

I'm not exactly sure of the connection between what you've said and what I've said. Still, in the hopes of helping to elicit your point, let me say that I don't know the answer to your question. I will defer to you when you say that billions of Asians "lead perfectly moral secular lives", even though I (1) have never personally known anyone to lead a perfectly moral life of any sort, and (2) have no idea how this is relevant to anything else said here. As for whether anyone would be able to lead a perfectly moral life if he or she "actually followed the tenets explicitly described in the Bible", I can't say. What is a perfectly moral life, anyway?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Aren't you saying that ignorance among nonbelievers is the cause of their behaviour?

 

[Polaris]

I have heard from Catholics that Limbo was "taken back", but if Purgatory was, you'd better inform the priest that performed my grandfather's funerary mass, he spent most of his sermon letting us know that we have to pray for my grandfather so he can leave purgatory. Purgartory and Limbo were never the same place, as far as I know Limbo was just for dead unbaptized infants.

Because He's a just and loving God.

 

[ceo_esq]

Aren't you saying that ignorance among nonbelievers is the cause of their behaviour?

No, I said nothing about the behaviour of nonbelievers. I was saying that in my admittedly limited experience, the average Christian is not more ignorant about Christianity or the Bible than the average nonbeliever (like me).

There are several other striking similarities between Jesus and other preceeding mythical figures as well, not just Mithras but also Dionysus, Horus, and more. (Things such as baptism, being son of god, water into wine, etc. Worth looking up if you're interested.)

We discuss this topic in R&P with some frequency. Generally speaking, the more these similarities are investigated, the more tenuous and less compelling they appear.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Well, I've found that it really isn't Christian ignorance per sea. For example, I've found that the same people that can't answer what seem to be real basic questions about their own religion, also can't answer questions about politics.

You probably heard about the recent survey that showed where more people could name the Three Stooges than the three branches of the United States government, etc. etc.

We live in an age of extreme illiteracy. There's not much else to say.

Perhaps...

But it seems kinda strange that somebody would have so much faith in something they know so little about.

Despite ignorance, most people seem to be knowledgable about the things that are central to their life. Example being that many super-fans can rattle off the statistics of all their favorite players, but not know who Dick Cheney is. Someone who is really into cars can often tell you everything about a given model year. Plenty of otherwise lacking people know all the subplots of their favorite soap opera.

So if christianity is central to your life, shouldn't you know something about it?

 

[Kimpatsu]

No, I said nothing about the behaviour of nonbelievers. I was saying that in my admittedly limited experience, the average Christian is not more ignorant about Christianity or the Bible than the average nonbeliever (like me).

OK, I misunderstood. In my experience, however, atheists are far more knowledgeable about the Bible than Xians are.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Perhaps...

But it seems kinda strange that somebody would have so much faith in something they know so little about.

Despite ignorance, most people seem to be knowledgable about the things that are central to their life. Example being that many super-fans can rattle off the statistics of all their favorite players, but not know who Dick Cheney is. Someone who is really into cars can often tell you everything about a given model year. Plenty of otherwise lacking people know all the subplots of their favorite soap opera.

So if christianity is central to your life, shouldn't you know something about it?

The difference is that in all sects of the Xian cult, you are encouraged not to figure out the Bible for yourself, but to have it interpreted for you by a priest, pastor, or whomever. Memorising verses is fine; actually understanding them, however, is another issue...

 

[CFLarsen]

If you don't know the Word, you can't try to live the Word. It would be like trying to golf without the clubs.

DR

Of course you can try to live the Word, without knowing the Word.

In fact, all you have to do is say that you live the Word. And pick the parts of the Bible that supports your own morals.

That's the trick, you see.

 

[Forty-Two]

The difference is that in all sects of the Xian cult, you are encouraged not to figure out the Bible for yourself...

Be careful with generalizations, there; not "all sects" discourage personal interpretation of the Bible. As I've mentioned on another thread, I was raised Methodist (as were a few others on this board), and that denomination places a lot of emphasis on personal interpretation and not relying on someone else tell you what it means. To be sure, there are many denominations and sects that believe personal interpretation can be corrupted by personal sins and require you to acquiesce to the community, but not all Christians believe that.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I was raised Methodist (as were a few others on this board), and that denomination places a lot of emphasis on personal interpretation and not relying on someone else tell you what it means.

I was also raised Methodist, and I too was told that it was a good thing to question my beliefs.

That was their first mistake.

But my nature being what it is, I'm pretty sure I would have questioned my way right out of the church anyway.

 

[wolfgirl]

I was saying that in my admittedly limited experience, the average Christian is not more ignorant about Christianity or the Bible than the average nonbeliever (like me).

But shouldn't they not just be "no more ignorant than nonbelievers" if they are going to base their lives on it? I, being an atheist, don't really need to know much about the Bible, because it doesn't have any bearing on my life. But if I claimed to be a xian and to live my life by xian beliefs, shouldn't I know exactly what all that entails?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Be careful with generalizations, there; not "all sects" discourage personal interpretation of the Bible. As I've mentioned on another thread, I was raised Methodist (as were a few others on this board), and that denomination places a lot of emphasis on personal interpretation and not relying on someone else tell you what it means. To be sure, there are many denominations and sects that believe personal interpretation can be corrupted by personal sins and require you to acquiesce to the community, but not all Christians believe that.

So how does that work exactly? You interpret Genesis 1:1 literally, say, and the person in the pew next to you interprets the same verse metaphorically. Which one of you is right? And how do you settle that?

 

[bruto]

The difference is that in all sects of the Xian cult, you are encouraged not to figure out the Bible for yourself, but to have it interpreted for you by a priest, pastor, or whomever. Memorising verses is fine; actually understanding them, however, is another issue...

Speaking as one who had some christian education I take exception to that broad statement, which smacks of the very kind of ignorance you're attributing to christians. Of course I went to a pretty unusual sunday school, but understanding was exactly what we were encouraged to do, even at the risk of losing faith (or in my case never quite acquiring it). Substitute "many" for "all" if you please.

My wife was brought up Catholic, and learned just about zilch about the bible, the Church, its history, its doctrine, or much of anything else that wasn't drilled into her in catechism. Considering how much of her time was spent in sunday schools, catechism classes, confirmation classes, and even a few years in parochial school, her religious education was astonishingly bad.

 

[bruto]

So how does that work exactly? You interpret Genesis 1:1 literally, say, and the person in the pew next to you interprets the same verse metaphorically. Which one of you is right? And how do you settle that?

Not all sects demand consistency of belief among their members, especially on details. It need not be settled at all if the persons involved find what they have in common more important.

 

[Forty-Two]

So how does that work exactly? You interpret Genesis 1:1 literally, say, and the person in the pew next to you interprets the same verse metaphorically. Which one of you is right? And how do you settle that?

What is there to settle? No, really, Methodists don't care if the person next to them interprets verses differently than they do, particularly ones that have little or no bearing on how a person should behave.

Most Methodists don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible anyway, but there's no tenet or rule in Methodism that states, "You will not interpret the Bible literally;" it's just that a denomination that allows that much freedom tends to attract people who are less inclined to interpret it that way.

I remember being in a C.S. Lewis book group while I was still a practicing Methodist, and two people had a disagreement over whether non-Christians can go to heaven. Now, there's an issue that's central to Christianity, yet neither person was any less a Methodist due to his or her opinion.

 

[davefoc]

My thought is that the opening question is flawed in that it tends to treat Christians as a monolithic group with regard to this.

I think there are quite a lot of somewhat religious people who have a sort of balanced view of all this. There religion provides them a little socialization, some sense of tradition, and some good feelings about beliefs that make them happy. They do not have a skeptic's view of the world that puts a very high value on truth and carefully examined views. They find happiness in their approach to religion and they can't understand the logic of having a need to examine it all that closely. I don't think there's much question about why these people don't know more about the bible or their religion in general. They don't care and they don't see learning about that stuff as an intrinsic part of their religion.

In addition to relgious people who might fall roughly into the above group there are many others who have a need to deeply examine things and do delve into relgious texts and study with great dedication. Alas, IMHO, for many of them the confirmation bias is so strong that they will never read anything outside of apologist writings and they will end up with an outlook that is very similar to the first group.

There is another group that will delve into religious literature with a goal of understanding everything about it including the secular writings. Some of these people will become the biblical apologists that are quite common on the internet. The will know vast quantities of details more than the first group but in the end their views will be about the same.

There even seem to be a few believers who will be driven to understand the history and details of their religion that will actually lose their relgious faith as a result. These folks have created some of the best historical Jesus sites on the internet, albeit, at times they tend to overshoot the mark, IMHO, because of their entusiasm for their new cause.