Asha'man

For such a smart guy, how can you so utterly fail to understand the difference between ignorance and stupidity?? I don’t care how smart you may be, if you don’t know a fact, then you are ignorant of that fact.

It’s pretty damn clear that most Christians have never actually performed a critical reading of the whole Bible. No matter how smart they may be, they are ignorant of the contents of their book, and what the implications are.

For example, the multiple contradictory genealogies of Jesus imply quite clearly that there are outright fabrications in the gospels. There is no way to dismiss a genealogy as a parable or a metaphor, it’s intended meaning is clear and the language is plain. But if parts of the gospels are fabrications, how can you tell what parts are real?

Now, as a Christian, and a smart guy, I was still ignorant of the fact that these contradictory genealogies existed. They were concealed by the church, hidden in plain sight. No sermon ever mentioned them, no bible study ever addressed them. It was only by reading atheist writings that I ever became aware of them.

Ok, so your credentials are nearly as good as mine. With any luck, you will be able to look at your religious beliefs in the same critical manner that I did, and find the same conclusion. It mostly depends on the strength of your childhood indoctrination vs. the strength of your desire to face unpleasant truths.

I acknowledged that possibility for a decade or two, as a believing Christian. It lead me here. Think carefully about that, and you may follow my footsteps.

Let’s turn your question around, do you acknowledge that man has clearly invented gods out of ignorance and superstition? Are you willing to acknowledge the possibility that your religion was invented in the same manner as all the rest? Do you have any objective evidence that shows your religion was not invented like all the rest?

jbernier

That is a very good point. A chaplain friend of mine once observed that the average Christian has a grade three theological education. I think that it is a major problem in the North American church right now - indeed, perhaps the single biggest problem as you have a low lot of people running around calling themselves "Christian" without the slightest clue what the word actually means and what the faith actually entails.

Jonathan

jbernier

Although you make a good point I would be careful about overexaggerating. I study Biblical studies at the university (soon to be graduate) level. I know a whole lot of professional Biblical scholars and hope to one day be one myself. I doubt that any of them have ever or ever intend to do critical readings of the whole Bible, at least not in any depth - there simply are not hours in the day.

Two questions: First, did the early church see these as "fabrications" or as an ordinary part of what it meant to write a gospel?; Second, does it really matter theologically if some are "real" or "not real" (remembering, of course, that it is all "real" - the question is whether or not a particular text references something that happened in an actual historical context)?

I think that one must be careful not to make it sound like a conspiracy. Most evangelical pastors I know are committed to the idea of inerrancy; they, too, see the problematic parts there but dismiss them from their mind.

These are fair questions. To the first: I think that "ignorance" and "superstitution" are too perjorative to capture the creative aspects of society which are involved in the construction of religious ideas. To the second: All religions, all cultures, come about in the same fashion: Through human dialogue and practice leading to and stemming from ideas which in some fashion take and have taken on a life of their own. That, however, does not mean that the ideas do not in some fashion reference that which exists in reality - any more than the fact that scientific dialogue and practice is equally part of the social world means that scientific investigation does not in some fashion reference that which exists in reality. In other words, recognizing that an idea is produced and constructed in a social context does not necessarily mean that it does not reference a reality outside the realm of ideas.

jbernier

This is very true. For instance, if it were not for scientific investigation and research I would not be typing on this computer sending this message across wires to potentially thousands of other people.

I am not entirely sure why postulating the existence of a spiritual world would necessarily be a barrier to giving life meaning. As for how something outside myself give me meaning I must say that I get a lot of meaning from my family, friends, teachers, students, etc. Indeed, my life would be a whole lot less meaningful if there were no other human beings. I am not sure that it would have any meaning if I were the only person on the face of the planet. In fact, I am certain that if I were the only person on the face of the planet with no books to read that I would find life pretty boring and empty. So we all get meaning from things outside ourselves everyday.

Further, what is to say that "surrendering" to another power does not create meaning for oneself? What is surrendering but an act of will that allows one to find meaning precisely in the act of surrendering. That is a key idea behind, for instance, Paul's notion of salvation: That by imitating the faithfulness of Christ one begins to take in to one's own self the compassion of Christ; this, in turn, is part of a creation of a new community of people called out from the larger world who can and do coexist with one another precisely because they have surrendered to a higher ideal of compassion.

You are right that our ethics should be rooted in compassion; however, I fail to see how such compassion is necessarily incompatible with theistic and specifically Christian belief.

Yahzi

On of my friends had a textbook for his physics class called "Gravity." The joke was that it was such a weighty book (it was huge!). I do believe they read the entire volume, rather critically, in a few semesters.

Are theologians really slow readers? Or does making up all the context really slow you down?

Asha'man

First, when stating a statistical trend about the ignorance of any large group of humans, overexaggerating is rarely a problem.

Clearly, we both recognize that there are multiple levels of critical reading. To clarify, I made my statement with the intent of getting into the first level of critical, where the brain is not in idle, and the text is read with a hint of suspicion. This might be the same level of reading you apply to any non-fiction text, not even the level you would apply to the holy book of another competing religion. All extreme claims require at least a minimal level of support, apparent contradictions are treated as such, inaccuracies are assumed to exist in some places in the text, etc. Most (not all) believers simply accept the Bible as absolute truth, with any apparent problems being blamed squarely on the reader, not the text.

Don’t know about the early church, but I see the genealogies as outright fabrications. Deliberate lies. They appear (to me) to be an answer to an objection, that the Messiah must be of Davidic descent. Some early preacher was getting tired of being questioned about Jesus’ ancestry every time he spoke to a group of Jews, so he pulled a genealogy out of thin air. (Actually, I think he hired a Jewish scholar who then shafted him, but that is a different story) A second preacher was facing the same problem, and independently fabricated a second genealogy. (Alternately, the second preacher realized the flaws of the first genealogy, and hoped to provide a more plausible one, with the first one eventually being forgotten.)

And yes, it matters. The trustworthiness of the whole text is shattered. The text can be verified to be both internally and externally inconsistent. It therefore falls into the category of myth, not divine revelation. We can know nothing about the supernatural without the direct assistance of the supernatural itself, and this book was not produced with the assistance of a (knowledgeable and honest) supernatural entity. (Malicious or ignorant entities cannot be ruled out, however.)

Personally, I think some pastors don’t realize there is a problem, others deliberately conceal anything that may “trouble� their flock. Some have an honest motivation to help people, others are worried about control and the flow of money. Without studying a specific example, it’s hard to tell which is honest and which knows there is a scam going on.

The earliest gods were clearly an anthropomorphic attempt to explain natural phenomena. We see all sorts of gods who provide an explanation for the weather, the sun, the seasons, the stars and planets, etc. These early peoples simply did not have the scientific tools to come up with a real explanation, so the one they invented resembled themselves. I think that is a long winded way of saying that the gods were invented out of ignorance and superstition, don’t you agree?

As I mentioned before, we cannot learn anything by observing the supernatural directly. If we could, it would be natural, and subject to the methods of scientific inquiry. Therefore, all real knowledge of the supernatural must be derived from supernatural assistance. Anything other than that is purely a guess, generally driven almost entirely by wishful thinking. So no, an idea produced out of a social context probably has no bearing on an unobservable reality. If it does, it’s purely a matter of lucky guessing.

Are you willing to change your life based on the chance that a lucky guess happens to be right? (If so, I’ve got a winning lottery ticket to sell you…)

converted

Christianity is truth for me because I have felt it work in my life; however, God may have some type of relationship with all religions. I don't know. However, if I wait until I see clear and unimpeachable evidence of everything I would never find the answers.

I was not trying to impress anyone with acedemic credentials. That is meaningless to me. I only wrote that because many athiests (e.g. Tom Leykes on the radio) appears to be this psuedo intellectual who claims that the majority of intellectuals are athiests and only idiots are Christians. The only reason I posted that crap is that nothing can be further from the truth. In small groups in church, we have philsophical discussions all of the time about these very same topics (e.g. age of universe, what about other religions, science versus creationism,...). Unfortunately, the view that always reaches the masses is the view from the Pope or the "Moral Majority".

The problem with the science analogy is that over time old theories die and new ones come along. Before Einstein, everyone thought the universe behaved based on Newton's laws. I am sure in 100 years, people will look at Einstein and laugh.

I find that God's purpose for my life and my purpose are the are the same (hopefully). Sometimes it is difficult to discern answers the answers to prayers. Anyways, I do derive meaning in my life from my beliefs. I am not a robot and I have a fulfilling set of activities (i.e. family, career, skiing, hiking, fishing, etc...). Christianity definately helps me live a more meaningful life because I focus on the important aspects and avoid stupid thing (drinking too much, gambling,...).

converted

I have had personal experiences that were clearly what I call "God events" with answers to prayers that were not coincidences. My wife and I both have personally had a multitude of expereinces like this. By know means do I believe that would be proof to anyone else, but it is proof to me. I know that my prayers are answered, so "someone" is listening. Because of these personal expereinces, I do not care about a critical analysis of the Bible. I'm sure there are likely contradictions, but that is unimportant to me because of my personal spiritual experiences.

Godless Wonder

So what is wrong with not finding the answers? Isn't admitting that you don't know, when you don't know, more honest? Why isn't it better to admit you haven't found the answers, and that you don't know, than to blindly accept the "answers" handed to you by other people who insist that these answers must be taken on "faith," (which really means, taken at face value, without question, or at most the questions must not result in rejection of the claims, only reinterpretation.) Faith is fundamentally dishonest.

Kosh

Isn't it ironic that that purpose also ends up being what the Church wants? A perfect Triune! Proof of YHWH! <Crowd goes wild>

I'll say this loud so you can hear through the fingers stuck in your ears then.... WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS THREAD?

<and the chant goes on> la la la la la la la la la