IOW, they ignore the mutually exclusive differences and pretend that those differences don't exist? Ostriches'r'us?
Why don't christians know more?
- Thread starter DRBUZZ0
- Start date
-
- Tags
- christians
IOw, Methodism has no cohesion. Why do these people both call themselves Methodists when they can't even agree on the fundamental tenets of their sect? Only one of them can be right, after all; the question is mutually exclusive.
It's that very lack of intellectual rigor that makes them woo-woos. Oh, for critical thinking to be taught in schools.
There are many people on this forum who identify themselves as skeptics, yet they disagree on many details. Would you say that we're pretending those differences don't exist?
davefoc
Philosopher
By my definition of woo-woo, no. These are people who are the norm. Their skepticism puts them in the gray region between skeptic and woo-woo. They have enough skepticism to lead a pretty standard life. They homes aren't filled with tarot cards, crystals, etc. Maybe they'll read an astrology column every now and then and they don't puke when Sylvia Browne comes on the TV, but mostly they are skeptical enough to lead normal, productive lives without being easy pickings for most scammers.
I think there might be quite a few closet skeptics hanging out in this group. Perhaps for soical reasons, or because they don't want to be confrontational with their social or family groups these people keep their skepticism to themselves and just hang out with the non-skeptics without ever letting on that they think that a lot of beliefs of their group are just crap.
Last edited:
Um, no. It has a pattern for worship services, a hymnal, a liturgy, an organizational heirarchy, and so on. It does have fundamental tenets, just not the ones you seem to expect it to have. One tenet is that a person must develop a personal interpretation of scripture in order to have a meaningful understanding of God.
You appear not to be at all knowledgeable about Methodism or any other non-dogmatic form of Christianity; I suggest you do more research. Wikipedia is as good a place to start as any; here's the Wiki article on Methodist theology.
Marc L
Thread Killer
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,739
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Kimpatsu, since Forty-Two has answered well enough for both of us, I'll just add that Christianity abounds with ideas, practices and beliefs that are ripe for doubt, dispute and contradiction, but to do the job well it would help if you know what you're talking about.
Marc L
Thread Killer
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,739
I think one of the biggest things that people need to realize is that there's knowledge about Christianity, and then there's knowledge. By this I mean, most Christians can tell you about the basics of their faith. There is a god, he had a son, born of a virgin, twelve apostles, etc. For them, that's enough. In much the same way, most people can tell you how their car works-ie, you stick the key in the ignition, turn it, and the car goes-assuming there's gas in it. For most people, that's enough.
Then there's knowledge. By this I mean the stuff that you have seminaries for, theologians like RC Sproul-deep stuff. Stuff like we talk about online. Most Christians for whatever reason don't get into that. Not because they're necessarily afraid, but because, to them, it doesn't matter. They know God loves them and wants them to be nice to each other. In the same way, most people probably couldn't tell you every little detail about how their car works, the theories behind it, how to repair it, etc. Again, it doesn't matter. If it's broke, they take it to a mechanic. If a Christian has doubts, he takes it to his minister (who, we hope, has at least some theological training).
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.
What's unfortunate, however, is that there is a group of Christians that exists in between the basic believers and the theologians. They're the ones who've attended a bible study or a prayer meeting, and, unfortunately have more zeal than wisdom. They dive into the fray with people like us (the skeptical ones), and think they can do battle. Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you how disheartening it is to go into a thread, post what you think is a dazzling argument, only to have it shot down because (and I quote) "that obfuscation has been refuted already." I was so disgruntled that I had to look up what obfuscation meant.
In my case, I learned (over time) to actually study my arguments before posting them, and to pay attention to what had already been said on both sides. That, coupled with the shocking realization that there were times when my church cared more about appearances than helping others, eventually led to my being an atheist.
What I guess I'm saying is that it's not so much ignorance that we face from Christians (especially those that post online), it's inexperience. Don't get me wrong, I've met online and chatted with some really intelligent, thoughtful Christian posters. 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
Then there's knowledge. By this I mean the stuff that you have seminaries for, theologians like RC Sproul-deep stuff. Stuff like we talk about online. Most Christians for whatever reason don't get into that. Not because they're necessarily afraid, but because, to them, it doesn't matter. They know God loves them and wants them to be nice to each other. In the same way, most people probably couldn't tell you every little detail about how their car works, the theories behind it, how to repair it, etc. Again, it doesn't matter. If it's broke, they take it to a mechanic. If a Christian has doubts, he takes it to his minister (who, we hope, has at least some theological training).
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.
What's unfortunate, however, is that there is a group of Christians that exists in between the basic believers and the theologians. They're the ones who've attended a bible study or a prayer meeting, and, unfortunately have more zeal than wisdom. They dive into the fray with people like us (the skeptical ones), and think they can do battle. Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you how disheartening it is to go into a thread, post what you think is a dazzling argument, only to have it shot down because (and I quote) "that obfuscation has been refuted already." I was so disgruntled that I had to look up what obfuscation meant.
In my case, I learned (over time) to actually study my arguments before posting them, and to pay attention to what had already been said on both sides. That, coupled with the shocking realization that there were times when my church cared more about appearances than helping others, eventually led to my being an atheist.
What I guess I'm saying is that it's not so much ignorance that we face from Christians (especially those that post online), it's inexperience. Don't get me wrong, I've met online and chatted with some really intelligent, thoughtful Christian posters. 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
Skepticism is not a creed, so your comparison is invalid. Xianity is a revealed religion, so it should be incapable of misconstrual... unless the revelation is flawed or incomplete, in which case it can't be the word of a perfect god.
Oh, wait...
Ah, this is something that Teller addressed at TAM3. During the Penn & Teller Q&A, a delegate stood up and said she regarded herself as a Methodist because she was religious, but she didn't believe a god existed, didn't think the paranormal was real, and didn't accept the claims of Sylvia Browne et. al., so Teller immediately demanded to know why she called herself religious. A little pressure led to her acknowledging that viscerally she felt to call herself a skeptic or an atheist was to admit to being morally bankrupt. David Mills calls this the "bigotry of Xian coercion", in that people are raised to believe that atheism is synonymous with immorality, which is patently not true (Daniel Dennet raised this issue in both Breaking the Spell and Freedom Evolves, and again durign TAM4). The bottom line is that our culture teaches that a belief in god is the sine qua non of ethical behaviour, and so atheists are de facto immoral. Until this prejudice is overcome, irreligious people who fall into the trap of believing this lie will continue to label themselves as members of a religion, whilst simultaneously not harbouring a single religious notion. They are just victims of the claptrap described above. It sounds to me like Methodism falls into that category.
This Guy
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,140
I think one reason many Christians appear to not know much about the bible is that they learn it in bits and pieces.
A lot of the bible studies, and sermons are designed to teach a point. They tend to jump around the bible picking out verses that make that point, and skipping most of the rest of the bible. This IMHO tends to cause a lot of bible studying Christians to have a lot of little facts, but not a good knowledge level of the WHOLE bible.
As an example, if you ask any Southern Baptist what John 3:16 says, they will rattle it off before you can blink, and not miss a word. Ask them what John 3:15 says on the other hand, and I'd be surprised if half of them could answer without looking it up.
I think the fact that many Christians read the bible with a non-critical view has something to do with it also. They might see the contradictions, but are likely to assume that it's not really a contradiction. I suspect they would assume there is an explanation somewhere, that clears up the contradiction, they just haven't run across it yet. Those that look for the answer to the contradiction end up posting here as atheist I suspect
A lot of the bible studies, and sermons are designed to teach a point. They tend to jump around the bible picking out verses that make that point, and skipping most of the rest of the bible. This IMHO tends to cause a lot of bible studying Christians to have a lot of little facts, but not a good knowledge level of the WHOLE bible.
As an example, if you ask any Southern Baptist what John 3:16 says, they will rattle it off before you can blink, and not miss a word. Ask them what John 3:15 says on the other hand, and I'd be surprised if half of them could answer without looking it up.
I think the fact that many Christians read the bible with a non-critical view has something to do with it also. They might see the contradictions, but are likely to assume that it's not really a contradiction. I suspect they would assume there is an explanation somewhere, that clears up the contradiction, they just haven't run across it yet. Those that look for the answer to the contradiction end up posting here as atheist I suspect
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Kimpatsu, quite simply stated, not all Christian sects are "creedal," and you assume wrongly that all Christian sects consider the same things to be revealed, or the bible to be simply the word of a perfect god. Some Christians believe that the things revealed are relatively few, and the rest of the details are open for interpretation and discussion. Even if you are right in considering Christianity bulls**t and religion itself a bad idea, you do your argument no favor by misconstruing what is actually the case. I am a little surprised sometimes at some of the things critics of Christianity find to criticize, since if you dislike rigid, doctrinaire, literalist religions that force to you believe and perform nonsense, this headroom in at least some corners of Christianity would strike me as a strength, not a weakness.
Perhaps so, and perhaps they are. I was merely observing that in my experience they aren't more ignorant, without excluding the possibility that they are less ignorant.
Well, as I've noted before, regardless of who you are you do need to know a fair bit about the Bible if you aspire to any deep understanding of most central aspects of Western civilization and culture. If you don't aspire to such an understanding, then of course you don't need to know much about the Bible.
Yet Christianity and the Bible supposedly exist for the purpose of human salvation, and according to them the amount of actual knowledge that is required for that salvation is really quite small, when you think about it. So perhaps we need not infer a Christian duty to possess a great deal of knowledge even in religious matters.
Purgatory has an entire book worth of mention from Dante, who describes it as a journey up a mountain of hardships onward to heaven. Dante says it is purification and punishment, which is probably why their interpretations have it that way, and why you get one version or the other. Everybody reads Inferno and skips the rest.
If the sect isn't creedal, and doesn't accept the Bible as literally true, then wTF makes it Xianity?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
To begin with, many people, Baptists and other fundies in particular, would consider the two things mutually exclusive: those who accept the Bible as their only authority usually define themselves as non-creedal.
I'm inclined to say "look it up." There must be some kind of resource in your world that would disabuse you of your simplistic view of what defines Christianity. In some sects, it would likely be enough to believe that there is a god and to accept the teachings of Jesus Christ. Beyond that, obviously, different groups have different criteria, but many churches, even if they officially take some view and require that their clergy profess and preach certain doctrines, do not require of their members a promise of adherence to that specific set of beliefs. Many do, of course. Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and others are creedal, though I doubt you'd be thrown out of a Presbyterian church if you expressed doubts, either. Methodists, Quakers, most Baptists, and most of the offshoots of the Puritan and Anabaptist tradition, often loosely termed "Congregationalist" in the U.S., usually are not.
As for taking the bible as literally true, it is certainly not taught, preached or encouraged by many sects creedal and otherwise.
I seem to have lost my copy, but I recall that Leo Rosten's The Religions of America did a pretty good job of sorting these things out. You might do yourself a favor by hunting down a copy.
All Quakers are pacifists, which is a creed. Baptists are extremely literal in their interpretations of the Bible, and as described above, by what means do Methodists even call themselves Xians? A question posed by Penn Jillette at TAM3. The Bible need not be taken to be literally true to be a creed, however; Catholics take much to be metaphorical, but which parts are metaphor and which literal is told to them, and is not open to personal interpretation, which the catechism of the CC describes as "dangerous" (or at least it used to; the Infallible Pope changes his mind regularly...)
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
wrong. There have been plenty of "fighting Quakers," of whom the notorious Richard M. Nixon is a prominent example.
in the vernacular sense, perhaps, but not in the sense I have been using when I use the term "creedal" for sects that require of their members a statement of faith. Quakers, as far as I know, do not do this. Considering that you can sit through a year of Quaker meetings without uttering a single word, I don't know where they would fit it in!
not all of them
Ah, "no true Scotsman," eh? Why shouldn't Methodists call themselves Christians? It's what they are. What compels them (or anyone else, for that matter) to use your definition?
if you redefine the word to suit the argument, perhaps.
Yes, the RC church is creedal in the extreme, and loaded with doctrine and dogma. Nonetheless, if you said they take the bible as literal, you would be wrong, wouldn't you? And if you stuck to your previous statement that this is a requisite for being a Christian, you would have to say that the Pope is not a Christian. While the Rastafarians might cheer you on, most people would consider that a pretty preposterous assertion. And the Pope is said to be "infallible" in the sense that he cannot be considered to be in error when he makes certain pronouncements of dogma. That's silly enough without redefining it to something it was never meant to mean.
Kimpatsu, you remind me of an Atheist version of Iamme.