DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: William Wallace on November 11, 2011, 11:40:51 AM
-
https://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church
It's long, but here's the gist. Has this been anybody's experience?
Reason #1 – Churches seem overprotective.
A few of the defining characteristics of today's teens and young adults are their unprecedented access to ideas and worldviews as well as their prodigious consumption of popular culture. As Christians, they express the desire for their faith in Christ to connect to the world they live in. However, much of their experience of Christianity feels stifling, fear-based and risk-averse. One-quarter of 18- to 29-year-olds said “Christians demonize everything outside of the church” (23% indicated this “completely” or “mostly” describes their experience). Other perceptions in this category include “church ignoring the problems of the real world” (22%) and “my church is too concerned that movies, music, and video games are harmful” (18%).
Reason #2 – Teens’ and twentysomethings’ experience of Christianity is shallow.
A second reason that young people depart church as young adults is that something is lacking in their experience of church. One-third said “church is boring” (31%). One-quarter of these young adults said that “faith is not relevant to my career or interests” (24%) or that “the Bible is not taught clearly or often enough” (23%). Sadly, one-fifth of these young adults who attended a church as a teenager said that “God seems missing from my experience of church” (20%).
Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science.
One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.
Reason #4 – Young Christians’ church experiences related to sexuality are often simplistic, judgmental.
With unfettered access to digital pornography and immersed in a culture that values hyper-sexuality over wholeness, teen and twentysometing Christians are struggling with how to live meaningful lives in terms of sex and sexuality. One of the significant tensions for many young believers is how to live up to the church's expectations of chastity and sexual purity in this culture, especially as the age of first marriage is now commonly delayed to the late twenties. Research indicates that most young Christians are as sexually active as their non-Christian peers, even though they are more conservative in their attitudes about sexuality. One-sixth of young Christians (17%) said they “have made mistakes and feel judged in church because of them.” The issue of sexuality is particularly salient among 18- to 29-year-old Catholics, among whom two out of five (40%) said the church’s “teachings on sexuality and birth control are out of date.”
Reason #5 – They wrestle with the exclusive nature of Christianity.
Younger Americans have been shaped by a culture that esteems open-mindedness, tolerance and acceptance. Today’s youth and young adults also are the most eclectic generation in American history in terms of race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, technological tools and sources of authority. Most young adults want to find areas of common ground with each other, sometimes even if that means glossing over real differences. Three out of ten young Christians (29%) said “churches are afraid of the beliefs of other faiths” and an identical proportion felt they are “forced to choose between my faith and my friends.” One-fifth of young adults with a Christian background said “church is like a country club, only for insiders” (22%).
Reason #6 – The church feels unfriendly to those who doubt.
Young adults with Christian experience say the church is not a place that allows them to express doubts. They do not feel safe admitting that sometimes Christianity does not make sense. In addition, many feel that the church’s response to doubt is trivial. Some of the perceptions in this regard include not being able “to ask my most pressing life questions in church” (36%) and having “significant intellectual doubts about my faith” (23%). In a related theme of how churches struggle to help young adults who feel marginalized, about one out of every six young adults with a Christian background said their faith “does not help with depression or other emotional problems” they experience (18%).
-
I think also that young people leave beacuse they don't understand what is real and what is just a story. I was raised Catholic and am still confused about which events are believed to have actually happened.
-
I think also that young people leave beacuse they don't understand what is real and what is just a story. I was raised Catholic and am still confused about which events are believed to have actually happened.
I can sympathize. I was also raised Catholic and had a similar experience. It wasn't until my 20's that I began to understand what was truth and what isn't.
WW, as for the original post, I see what you are saying, and I understand the points being made, but where there is solid teaching, young people generally don't leave, from what I've observed. They grow up knowing what they believe, why they believe it, and how to defend it.
-
I left the church because I started thinking.
-
I stopped going to church because Christianity/Catholicism doesn't make any sense to me and I'd rather be home sleeping/playing xbox because church is about as fun as watching a tree grow.
-
I think also that young people leave beacuse they don't understand what is real and what is just a story. I was raised Catholic and am still confused about which events are believed to have actually happened.
I'm in a similar boat, but I go to mass almost weekly, mainly because my 85 year old great aunt doesn't have a ride otherwise. I couldn't say no to that request, family is family. The one thing the pastor has been talking about for the last year (almost weekly) is the lack of youth and overall attendance.
-
WW, as for the original post, I see what you are saying, and I understand the points being made, but where there is solid teaching, young people generally don't leave, from what I've observed. They grow up knowing what they believe, why they believe it, and how to defend it.
Yep. That's what's lacking most in churches, and I seen it in almost every church I've ever attended.
-
WW, as for the original post, I see what you are saying, and I understand the points being made, but where there is solid teaching, young people generally don't leave, from what I've observed. They grow up knowing what they believe, why they believe it, and how to defend it.
Yep. That's what's lacking most in churches, and I seen it in almost every church I've ever attended.
Not matter the belief system, people just seem to have an innate desire to (1) sleepwalk through their faith rather than think about it critically, grapple with it, test it, and own it; and/or (2) substitute things that seem more attractive for foundational truths. Both lead people away from correct beliefs (which is one of the reasons why, again, I had to leave the Catholic church), and Jesus railed against both problems constantly.
-
I think one of the most important reasons is that it has become much more socially acceptable to leave the church, or at least that's what I've experienced here (in dirty liberal Europe / the Netherlands). For the generations before me it was much more set from the beginning to which cultural religion group you belonged and that's hardly the case anymore, there is a dutch word for it 'ontzuiling' but I can't really find a good translation for it. Before the 60s/70s the specific religious sub-group you belonged to determined which news paper you read, which schools you went to, which tv channels you watched... etc.. which of course impaired social interaction outside your group a lot.
-
I think the OP is pretty good and corresponds to many of the reasons of rejection I had way back when.
And yeah, the lack of young people in churches is happening everywhere. And maybe there isn't much point in trying to stop that. My personal impression has been that the only difference between now and 100 years back is that the fake believers are now socially allowed to stay away from church (as Catfishman pointed out, that didn't used to be the case). What is better, a church that is chock full of fake believers, or one that only has the fervent ones?
rumborak
-
I think the main reason is that the act of going to church can be very boring as a young child. Then, once high school or college hits, the Liberal views and Scientific theories become very interesting and alluring to a young mind. The combination of those 2 elements definitely play a role in young people leaving the Church.
A side story in case some of you care or want to know where my opinion comes from: I grew up Catholic, but the church services were difficult to follow and not taken seriously at CCD classes. Then in college, I read a few Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris books that swayed me away from the Church even more. My Mother said "you read books about not believing in God, but have you ever read the Bible?" I hadn't, so I did. Once I studied it and put its beliefs into the context in which it was written, it made total sense. It wasn't easy. My mother passed away before I re-found my faith, but something about her passing was very spiritual in a way that I can't explain. That also wasn't easy. Both reading the Bible and my Ma passing brought me back to Christianity after I was one of the children that left the Church. I found a non-denominational Christian Church to go to that's fun and focused on the Grace of God. It's enjoyable and I'm comfortable in my faith now. You wouldn't know that at all from talking to or even knowing me well. It's all about striving to be a better person every day. I love that.
-
Sometimes people aren't given much of a choice as to what they're brought up to believe. And then they see more options once they've had enough education (ages vary with this point) and make decisions based on what they know and what they feel is right based on the consequences of their choice (eternal life/damnation or a life more free to do whatever/nothing after death/reincarnation/etc.).
Also, some people see the hypocrisy in the churches and how it makes people and that turns them away from being actively involved or even leaving the faith. I can say that is true about me, though it was somewhat gradual and I had stopped going to the "main services" for years, just going to young adult groups every week.
-
Reason #1 – Churches seem overprotective.
Moreso my parents, but yeah. That was one.
Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science.
[/b]
That was definitely another, since I was somewhat passionate about bio, especially genetics and evolution, in HS.
Reason #6 – The church feels unfriendly to those who doubt.
And that was the biggest one, by far.
I can sympathize. I was also raised Catholic and had a similar experience. It wasn't until my 20's that I began to understand what was truth and what isn't.
Can you give me some examples of where the Catholic Church just interprets scripture completely wrong? I can see the issues with not accepting the heirarchy, but I don't see what the other issues are.
where there is solid teaching, young people generally don't leave, from what I've observed. They grow up knowing what they believe, why they believe it, and how to defend it.
Depends on your view of "solid teaching". In my view, "solid teaching" is one that is encouraging and accommodating to people who are going through natural periods of doubt and/or frustration with Christianity. Is that what you mean, or something else?
-
Related to the point about doubt, I've often run into the inability of churches to deal with or care about it. All things historical and theological are uninteresting unless they relate to making the congregation feel better about themselves - "Fighting depression God's way," and so forth. In deeper study of the Bible I found a way to reinforce my faith, but few Christians seem to share that interest. Incredibly annoying. That often leads to the examples of people with doubts and legitimate questions being ignored by the very people who should care the most.
-
Regarding young people going to church:
I live in the bible belt, and over the course of the past year my girlfriend has taken me to three churches across the state, and not only were there almost no young people there, but most of the people there were older adults.
On Facebook, I probably have around 450 young "friends", and of those, I can literally only think of ten who actually go to church.
Not saying this is indicative of how it is everywhere. Absolutely not. But it's interesting, I think.
-
I stopped going to church because Christianity/Catholicism doesn't make any sense to me and I'd rather be home sleeping/playing xbox because church is about as fun as watching a tree grow.
Definitely this. Church felt like a chore.
-
I see no reason to spend an hour every weekend in a church full of old people that don't like my hair when I already get plenty of valid theological leaning/debate on forums like here.
-
I stopped going to church because Christianity/Catholicism doesn't make any sense to me and I'd rather be home sleeping/playing xbox because church is about as fun as watching a tree grow.
Definitely this. Church felt like a chore.
But lunch afterward tasted sooooooooooooooooo good!
-
I stopped going to church because Christianity/Catholicism doesn't make any sense to me and I'd rather be home sleeping/playing xbox because church is about as fun as watching a tree grow.
Definitely this. Church felt like a chore.
Same here of course. Thing was also, this trend of young people not going to church (at least in Germany) was in full blow when I was growing up in the 80s, and the priests were trying to "engage the youth". Only, the priests were so removed from the youth (not surprisingly, if you've never had kids yourself) that all they did was to rant on stuff like "Rambo" (and I vividly remember the priest hilariously mispronouncing the name), any attempt of theirs had the feeling of those educational movies where some old fucks decided to make a rap song, because "that's what the youth listens to these days".
Christianity in the Western world is in self-devouring mode right now. Its demographics is constantly aging, and of course the old people have no interest in modernizing the approach of it. So, it ends up digging in its heels on its stances, with fewer and fewer people willing to commit to something that feels so wrong on so many levels.
On the other hand, I don't know what a "modern Christianity" would look like. Would they openly say stuff like "yeah, the flood didn't happen, and Genesis didn't either. A lot of stuff in the gospels is plain made up too and added by whoever happened to write it down. But other than that, it'll save your soul!!"
(Interestingly, that was actually somewhat the angle my "Religion class" teacher was taking. But, I also couldn't help but notice that in church, they drove the hard line of "no, it's all true". I got the drift pretty quickly that they were trying to pull wool over my eyes)
rumborak
-
"yeah, the flood didn't happen, and Genesis didn't either. A lot of stuff in the gospels is plain made up too and added by whoever happened to write it down. But other than that, it'll save your soul!!"
You could just say that the old testament is not meant to be taken literally, but that it's a collection of records from the Jewish tradition that often hold some kind of allegorical or moral truth about how God wants people to live, or else are a wonderful source of information on how the ancient Jews reacted to God.
That's what the evil, cult-like Catholics say anyway.
-
That only moves the line though. The NT isn't flawless either; many parts have been proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be additions and modifications.
And Christianity as a whole has been playing that game for too long, of always retreating the exact amount to remain barely out of the crossfire. That way the geocentric system was conceded; Genesis was conceded to Evolution. But almost never as a proactive action, but instead with grinding teeth, many many years after they had become the laughing stock for their claims.
If Christianity wants to stop itself from becoming a "religion for the under-educated and 3rd world countries", they need to make a dash forward and be honest about its failings. I think one major unmentioned aspect in that OP list is that people gets the feeling they're being lied to constantly.
I personally don't care either way about Christianity's fate because I think it outlived its usefulness, but from my perspective it needs to move forward fast, or die in the trenches.
rumborak
-
Yeah, I'd be lying if I said during our Bible reading this year, I had to stop myself from thinking "bullshit, bullshit, bullshit" as I read through most of the OT, and instead had to train myself to think more along the lines that I was reading ancient historical documents that fused knowledge of the past with the deeply held religious convictions of the ancient Jews. After that, I was able to glean a bit more from it, though I still never finished the readings.
I'm not sure where you're going with "dead in the trenches" and "for the uneducated and 3rd world" comments. Sorry, but neither of those scenarios reflect where Christianity actually stands in the modern world at all. Not sure how you could come to those conclusions, honestly.
-
Well, I'm going by the fact that in Europe, for many years people leaving the churches have far outnumbered the people entering it, and in the US hardly any young people go to church either. The only places where Christianity is growing is in 3rd world countries.
EDIT: To back it up with numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth#United_States
https://www.atlasofglobalchristianity.org/images/samplepages_4.pdf
In the US, Christianity shrunk by 10% in the last 20 years, and in Europe even 15%.
rumborak
-
But I think that has more to do with the Churches than it has to do with the faith itself "outliving its usefulness." 10 percent over 20 years isn't terrible when you consider the scandals that have rocked the church, and the fact that many churches have admittedly done a bad job of handling them. Churches far away from all of that, like those in China and Asia, have been growing enormously over the last decade. The thing is, people naturally want to turn to sources of spiritual fulfillment, and Christianity still represents one of the longest standing and richest traditions in that department. That can not change. So, I don't think it's time to rule out Christianity as an outdated religion for the poor and stupid.
-
I definitely do not see any reason to assume the rate of leavings will decrease in the future. Anywhere churches end up in the news it's negative, be it Westborough, child abuse or whatever.
My point is really that Christianity makes its best headway in countries where people are still easy to sway, and have little exposure to competing world views.
rumborak
-
What I'm saying is that I think the leavings have much more to do with exterior issues, like the scandals, than they do with people thinking the faith itself is "ridiculous." You seem to think that the majority of the churches still hold to that literalistic interpretation of the Bible which is so easy to discount. I'm not sure how you've gotten that impression. That is not what many of the largest churches teach, and it certainly shouldn't be what the Catholic Church teaches to those "easy to sway" people in the Southern Hemisphere.
From what I can tell, it's mainly American conservative churches that indoctrinate their young from birth with the ancient OT fairy-tales and the "The Bible is perfect and you're going to hell if you don't believe in its infallible, literal truth" way of thinking, and then teach them that "science" is evil as they get older. But those churches and the doctrine they teach are actually in the minority, and, from what I can tell, a unique phenomenon of conservative America. Between the two, I'm not sure I agree with the statement that the people the Catholics are converting in South Asia, Africa, and South America are somehow the more easy-to-sway of the two populations.
-
What denomination is openly saying "yes, the Bible is plain wrong in numerous places"?
What the exact reasons are for Christianity booming in 3rd countries might be up for speculation, but I don't share your view it's because the faith is so "awesome". I you read any historical account of conversions, the local population usually heavily resists the new faiths (or secretly keeps practicing their old faiths at home), until adequate "incentives" are used (medical help after conversion, food etc.)
rumborak
-
What the exact reasons are for Christianity booming in 3rd countries might be up for speculation, but I don't share your view it's because the faith is so "awesome".
Haha, no. I'm not saying the Church is doing well in those places because it's "so awesome," I'm saying it's doing well there because it is able to communicate with people in those places in a way that is relevant to the realities they experience in their daily lives. In the US and EU, it has done the opposite, as you've noticed.
I'm not sure you're clear on where I'm actually disagreeing with you. You seem to think this has more to do with people "leaving" the Church because the object to issues like the existence of God and the teachings of Jesus. You cite the Church's continued defenses of indefensible scriptural passages an example. That is what I am disagreeing with. I agree that people in the US and EU are showing less interest in being an active part of the Church community and not attending masses as often, but I am saying that is has more to do with the Church having "dropped the ball" on playing a positive role in their communities than it does beef with core beliefs. As far as scripture goes, the Catholic Church and several Protestant churches take a very reasonable stand on those types of passages you are talking about, both in the OT and NT. Honestly, I think your wide experience dealing with fundamentalists has maybe tainted your view of what most Christians actually believe?
I'd also like to note: "leaving" and "not attending" are two different things. I don't often attend mass, and nor do I belong to one in an official capacity, but I haven't "left" Christianity, or the Catholic Church. I'd imagine most of these Christians who've "left" are the same: they might not show up, but they still are a part of the faith. They still want to be married in the eyes of God in the Church, they still want their children to do the same, etc.
What denomination is openly saying "yes, the Bible is plain wrong in numerous places"?
Catholic scholars generally agree that the Bible is not an infallible work, but an "interpretation" of the "Truth" which itself includes varied interpretations of what that is.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#5
Catholic exegesis does not claim any particular scientific method as its own. It recognizes that one of the aspects of biblical texts is that they are the work of human authors, who employed both their own capacities for expression and the means which their age and social context put at their disposal...
From what has just been said one can conclude that the Bible contains numerous indications and suggestions relating to the art of interpretation. In fact, from its very inception the Bible has been itself a work of interpretation. Its texts were recognized by the communities of the Former Covenant and by those of the apostolic age as the genuine expression of the common faith. It is in accordance with the interpretative work of these communities and together with it that the texts were accepted as sacred Scripture (thus, e.g. the Song of Songs was recognized as sacred Scripture when applied to the relation between God and Israel). In the course of the Bible's formation, the writings of which it consists were in many cases reworked and reinterpreted so as to make them respond to new situations previously unknown.
For a good, Catholic defense against "Sola Scriptura", view the following. Most notable is the first example: The Bible itself never claims the be the soul source of the "Truth", not does it claim it's own infallibility.
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
-
You know what I mean though, right? The article you quoted from the CC, do you not get the feeling that they mincing words, dragging their feet? It reads like a politician's statement who doesn't want to admit something that is obvious to everybody else.
One thing that needs to be considered, I think, is also that church attendance and affiliation isn't something that people are sitting at home, pondering about over dinner. I think whether or not you feel like going to church or not is something that gets decided on gut feeling a lot. The point being, that one's decision to go to church will be decided on the cumulative effect of all of the above. The fact that it doesn't answer questions you want to have answered. The fact that they're pushing a document as essentially perfect that so clearly isn't. I think those things pile up, where on Sunday a person says "my friends are going to brunch at XYZ. I think I'll go there,"
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the people who get polled, for the first time spend thought on the issue at the time they're answering the call.
rumborak
-
I read a book not long ago called Leaving Church, and the studies in that indicated that many of the people that are leaving church attendance are not leaving their belief; they just aren't getting their needs met in their local churches, so they are no longer attending. They still believe in God, they just no longer believe in church.
I can relate in many ways.
-
So can I.
I consider myself a very spiritual guy. Christian? No. The views I have on God and her ways of living are completely radical compared to those in the Bible, but she and I have this agreement that whenever she needs me to do something I do it, and vice versa. We understand each other, and that only started when I came back to Christianity.
For the longest time I felt compelled to question my faith simply because it felt wrong to follow the teachings of something I didn't whole-heartedly agree with. Since I came back, I've read passages, studied sources, compared and contrasted ideologies, and in the end came up with my own faith. It's loosely Christian, but not Christian enough to call it that.
I pray, I ask for forgiveness, I seek counsel, and in the end I believe in a Heaven and reincarnation afterwards. However, none of this could have been possible without going back. When I read this thread about the reasons for and effects of leaving the church I think about what it did for me to go back.
Sure, it made me 'leave' it again, if you want to call it that, but I still feel close to God, and I think she appreciates that.
PS: if anyone is offended that I am calling God a girl, I apologize for nothing.
-
You know what I mean though, right? The article you quoted from the CC, do you not get the feeling that they mincing words, dragging their feet? It reads like a politician's statement who doesn't want to admit something that is obvious to everybody else.
Not really. I think it's a very reasonable approach to studying the Bible, actually. I don't get how it's "obvious to everybody else" either, since as you have noticed there are still plenty of fire-and-brimstone "let's see what Leviticus says about this!" based churches around the States. Those extreme voices tend to be the loudest, unfortunately-- I've known other Catholics who had no idea the RCC didn't require them to reject Evolution; they simply weren't aware of their own church's teachings enough to know that it was a lot different than the types of churches you see making a big fuss about those issues on the media.
I read a book not long ago called Leaving Church, and the studies in that indicated that many of the people that are leaving church attendance are not leaving their belief; they just aren't getting their needs met in their local churches, so they are no longer attending. They still believe in God, they just no longer believe in church.
The thing you gotta consider is, rumbo, the divinity of Jesus and the merit of his teachings shouldn't have been any easier for people living fifty years ago or even a couple of centuries ago to swallow, yet the drop off in the US and EU has only really started occurring in the last two decades. Why? Simply put, the Church is not delivering a message that people today would benefit from hearing, and the scandals in the US and EU have left people with a bitter impression of it all. Those people go on believing privately and showing up when need be, but they don't really feel any connection to the Church. Again, I think what the issue here is the Church has lost its standing in the communities of the US and EU. It has a lot less, if anything at all, to do with modern people in the first world being less inclined to take Jesus or Christianity seriously, which I think is what you're suggesting?
-
Would they openly say stuff like "yeah, the flood didn't happen, and Genesis didn't either. A lot of stuff in the gospels is plain made up too and added by whoever happened to write it down. But other than that, it'll save your soul!!"
rumborak
You're right, I think, that ordinary Christians need to be better informed and have at least some familiarity with biblical scholarship, but what you're suggesting is a sort of sanitized, ignore-all-but-liberal-scholarship version of Christianity, spurred on by people like John Shelby Spong. That's an unnecessary revision.
-
I stopped going to church because Christianity/Catholicism doesn't make any sense to me and I'd rather be home sleeping/playing xbox because church is about as fun as watching a tree grow.
Definitely this. Church felt like a chore.
-
The thing you gotta consider is, rumbo, the divinity of Jesus and the merit of his teachings shouldn't have been any easier for people living fifty years ago or even a couple of centuries ago to swallow, yet the drop off in the US and EU has only really started occurring in the last two decades. Why? Simply put, the Church is not delivering a message that people today would benefit from hearing, and the scandals in the US and EU have left people with a bitter impression of it all. Those people go on believing privately and showing up when need be, but they don't really feel any connection to the Church. Again, I think what the issue here is the Church has lost its standing in the communities of the US and EU. It has a lot less, if anything at all, to do with modern people in the first world being less inclined to take Jesus or Christianity seriously, which I think is what you're suggesting?
The teachings of the churches across the world are pretty similar though, why would the Western churches be singled out to be the ones losing people due to its message?
My view on it it's because we're still experiencing the ramifications of the Enlightenment. Up until 100 years ago you couldn't speak out publicly against religion, and not showing up for church was equally a social death sentence (and it still is to this day in certain parts). However, that freedom is only slowly asserting itself over time, and the more it settles in, the more people disassociate themselves publicly from their church/religion.
rumborak
-
You're right, I think, that ordinary Christians need to be better informed and have at least some familiarity with biblical scholarship, but what you're suggesting is a sort of sanitized, ignore-all-but-liberal-scholarship version of Christianity, spurred on by people like John Shelby Spong. That's an unnecessary revision.
Why is it unnecessary? If history teaches anything, it's that all religions lose the battle on claims that are objectively verifiable. What's the point of keeping those things silently in, in the hope that the general public once again doesn't care enough to notice? If the Christian churches are really interesting in stopping the drain of people, continually moving the goal post a little isn't gonna cut it.
rumborak
-
The teachings of the churches across the world are pretty similar though, why would the Western churches be singled out to be the ones losing people due to its message?
They're sometimes as different as completely different religions. And it's the role the church has played in those communities that's playing the bigger part, not the "message". Churches like the RCC know how to be relevant to communities in Africa and South America. What they've lost touch with is how to be relevant in communties in EU and US, plus they've dealt with the scandals. I don't think that has anything to do with the Enlightenment, since most people still believe in God and Jesus.
Church attendance numbers are down. Belief is not down nearly as much.
(https://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/pz5ko_z5ru-dwvlupny5nw.gif)
(https://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/fq16gv0mneuop7yrjlvsrw.gif)
You seem to be trying to frame a narrative where the Enlightenment has slowly been kicking in all these years and it's soon going to reach a "singularity" point where we wake up one-day in the near future to a world where no-one takes Christianity seriously anymore and everyone lives completely secular lives. That might happen one day, but I think it's much too simple of an explanation for why people are leaving their churches, and especially it doesn't take into account that people leaving their churches might, and usually do, still have deeply-held spiritual beliefs.
-
I don't think Christianity will disappear. I think it will settle on a percentage that reflects more accurately true believers, not just social Christians. Percentages in Scandinavia are probably somewhat a guide in that.
Regarding your quoted statistics, keep in mind that there's still a big stigma in the US to say you're an atheist or agnostic.
rumborak
-
I don't think Christianity will disappear. I think it will settle on a percentage that reflects more accurately true believers, not just social Christians. Percentages in Scandinavia are probably somewhat a guide in that.
Regarding your quoted statistics, keep in mind that there's still a big stigma in the US to say you're an atheist or agnostic.
rumborak
This is true, I can't tell my mom or dad I'm Agnostic, because I'm afraid that they'd freak out and might disconnect from me, for at least awhile :C
-
Yeah, I'd agree with the last two posts.
Also, my mom is a great example: when I was a teenager, she threw a fit when I told her I was agnostic (actually, I think I just told her I was a "deist", and she did not know what that was). She did not speak to me for days. Eventually, I wrote a letter about my new beliefs and left it on her bed, which she crumbled up and yelled at me for before resuming to not speak to me.
Now, she's equally frustrated with the Church, and barely ever goes to the same parish more than one week in a row, if she goes at all...
-
If history teaches anything, it's that all religions lose the battle on claims that are objectively verifiable.
Exactly. Your post highlights some of the biggest reasons the Catholic Church and other religious organizations have lost credibility throughout the ages: being dogmatic about things they should not be dogmatic about that are later discovered to be provably false. Thankfully, that is one area where the Bible proves time and again its infallibility. Too bad the CC didn't stick to the source.
-
I wonder how long it's going to be until the Christians of tomorrow say that the Christians here should have stuck to the source as well.
-
Depends on whether or not they are reading their Bibles.
-
That's exactly what everyone else who came before and everyone who will come after you will say as well.
-
That's exactly what everyone else who came before and everyone who will come after you will say as well.
Not at all.
-
That's exactly what everyone else who came before and everyone who will come after you will say as well.
Not at all.
I don't know how accurate or generalizable this is, but I just finished reading the book Blood Done Sign My Name for a class and one of the major themes in that book is how people in the South used religion to justify slavery and then segregation.
It seems like, at least with regard to that topic, what people say "the source" says has changed a lot over time.
-
TOX, there's a huge difference between someone saying the Bible says something versus what it actually says. The latter does not change regardless of the fact that the former may.
-
Let's just ignore the gays, atheists, agnostics, people that are borderline, people that still haven't quite worked out their beliefs, people who believed in the wrong God, and people that just never got a chance to read a bible for the moment.
Doesn't it bother you just a little bit that all of these people who have read, are reading, and will read the exact same book as you are going to miss out on an afterlife with God because they read the same book you are to the best of their ability and comprehension and came to a different/wrong conclusion on one issue or another? That these people are just adamant as you are that their interpretation of His word is right and it turned out they were wrong despite leading what they were 100% sure was the life He wanted from them; that doesn't make you second guess yourself just a little? Do you really believe that they just 'didn't read their bibles,' or knew deep down that that they were wrong but chose to believe otherwise for some mystery reason like your last post implies?
If I were in your position I'd be horrified that so many people who thought they were saved weren't, and wonder what it meant for me. And if I were discussing such a matter with another person (who's own eternal soul is just as at risk) I certainly wouldn't dismiss their questions and points with what amounts to 'lol nope,' not if I were being honest with myself at least. Especially considering it's already been acknowledged on these forums that every Christian here willingly disobeys His word and won't be making it to Heaven anyway, regardless of our beliefs.
edit:
TOX, there's a huge difference between someone saying the Bible says something versus what it actually says. The latter does not change regardless of the fact that the former may.
That's exactly what everyone else who came before and everyone who will come after you will say as well.
-
your point is very sobering, ehra.
not sure that anyone is suggesting that people who are genuinely trying to seek truth from Bible but are mistaken are necessarily lost. If so, as you acknowledged, there is no hope.
-
TOX, there's a huge difference between someone saying the Bible says something versus what it actually says. The latter does not change regardless of the fact that the former may.
Of course, but weren't we talking about what other people say the Bible says? :lol
-
TOX, there's a huge difference between someone saying the Bible says something versus what it actually says. The latter does not change regardless of the fact that the former may.
That's why there are multiple ways to approach "reading", rather than just accepting every word at face-value. If history teaches anything, it's that all religions lose the battle on claims that are objectively verifiable.
Exactly. Your post highlights some of the biggest reasons the Catholic Church and other religious organizations have lost credibility throughout the ages: being dogmatic about things they should not be dogmatic about that are later discovered to be provably false. Thankfully, that is one area where the Bible proves time and again its infallibility. Too bad the CC didn't stick to the source.
I agree with about half of this. The Catholic Church has been dogmatic about things they should not have been, which is indeed a reason why they've lost credibility. I doubt we'd disagree on what those issues are, but I'd say the church's backwards sex teachings over the last 50 years has been a big one.
But the point about "sticking to the source" is bogus. Biblical infallibility is not the answer. Honestly, despite all the claims about Biblical Infallibility I've never once read a compelling argument for it. I'm never even read a good scripture-based argument for it.
-
But the point about "sticking to the source" is bogus. Biblical infallibility is not the answer. Honestly, despite all the claims about Biblical Infallibility I've never once read a compelling argument for it. I'm never even read a good scripture-based argument for it.
Some of the most inane arguments I've read/heard from otherwise apparently intelligent Christians have to do with this topic. Like you, I have *never* seen a remotely convincing argument, even when I was a relatively devout Christian.
What's more, I hardly see why it's an integral belief, which makes it all the more baffling that so many people seem to desperately cling to such an indefensible doctrine.
-J
-
what are you meaning by biblical infallability?
do you mean whether the english translations reflect the original mss?
otherwise, I think of passages like II Tim 3:16-17 which seem clear that the original text of scripture is God-breathed and thus infallible
-
what are you meaning by biblical infallability?
do you mean whether the english translations reflect the original mss?
I think both questions are relevant, among other considerations.
otherwise, I think of passages like II Tim 3:16-17 which seem clear that the original text of scripture is God-breathed and thus infallible
The fact that a scriptural text claims its own infallibility isn't very compelling if you don't assume it from the beginning.
-J
-
Isnt showing the bible is "god-breathed and infallible", using bible text as proof, merely boot-strapping?
-
what are you meaning by biblical infallability?
do you mean whether the english translations reflect the original mss?
I think both questions are relevant, among other considerations.
otherwise, I think of passages like II Tim 3:16-17 which seem clear that the original text of scripture is God-breathed and thus infallible
The fact that a scriptural text claims its own infallibility isn't very compelling if you don't assume it from the beginning.
-J
I was thinking of PC's statement about not reading a good biblical argument for it, then you agreed about biblical infallibility. since I can think of a number of biblical claims for it being the word of God, I thought maybe I was missing the understanding of what is meant by infallibility.
I wouldn't argue that the current text we have is infallible. I think it is pretty close based on how minor the differences are each time we find older mss, but it is equally clear that stuff has been added/taken away.
-
Isnt showing the bible is "god-breathed and infallible", using bible text as proof, merely boot-strapping?
not sure what boot-strapping is, but it sounds bad :lol
-
Isnt showing the bible is "god-breathed and infallible", using bible text as proof, merely boot-strapping?
not sure what boot-strapping is, but it sounds bad :lol
A person cant pull himself out of quicksand by pulling his own hair up. He cant pull himself up over a fence by pulling on his own bootstraps. You cant say the bible is infallible and god-breathed because the bible says it is.
-
oh, gotcha.
-
Especially considering it's already been acknowledged on these forums that every Christian here willingly disobeys His word and won't be making it to Heaven anyway, regardless of our beliefs.
I thought you made a good post but I didn't get this part.
Oh. Did you mean Catholic instead of Christian? 'Cos then it makes way more sense to me.
-
I'm talking about an old post where Rumby brought up the issue of Jesus saying you need to give away your possessions to get to Heaven. There was a lot of arguing, but at the end I remember Bosk saying that, yes, that is what those passages say, and we don't listen to them because it'd be an inconvenient way to live. Rumby asked for a clarification that he was saying that every Christian here isn't making it to Heaven and, to my memory, the thread died.
-
There was a lot of arguing, but at the end I remember Bosk saying that, yes, that is what those passages say, and we don't listen to them because it'd be an inconvenient way to live.
What? No, I don't think that is what I said.
-
I remember that part of the thread pretty well. I'm sure those weren't your exact words, but the general message of your post was 'yeah, you're right about Jesus saying this and it's a good reminder of how sometimes we don't follow His word because of X'
-
what are you meaning by biblical infallability?
do you mean whether the english translations reflect the original mss?
otherwise, I think of passages like II Tim 3:16-17 which seem clear that the original text of scripture is God-breathed and thus infallible
I'm not sure I follow.
Infallibility can generally mean one of two things:
1.) The bible is 100 percent perfect and factual in all matters.
2.) The bible is infallible in matters of faith, but not necessarily matters irrelevant to faith i.e. history, science.
The passage you quoted:
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
To me, "inspiration of God" does not necessarily mean "inerrant, because of that." In context, what Timothy is saying here seems to be more like "All scripture is useful for spreading the word, and helping people become more righteous and cultivated in virtue".
Aside from that, doesn't it seem weird that this "infallibility claim" would obviously have been made before Timothy was actually included in "scripture"? If Timothy was talking about previous scripture, how could his infallibility claim also cover him? Who says Timothy is infallible, if Timothy wasn't talking about himself? If Timothy's not infallible, then what he says about scripture isn't either. It may be nice, and worth considering, but it is not unquestionable.
-
I remember that part of the thread pretty well. I'm sure those weren't your exact words, but the general message of your post was 'yeah, you're right about Jesus saying this and it's a good reminder of how sometimes we don't follow His word because of X'
Can you find the thread? What you are attributing to me is pretty much the opposite of what I believe, so I think you either misunderstood or are misremembering.
-
I'm 99% sure it was before the crash.
It's definitely possible I misremembered. If you're saying your belief is otherwise then that's pretty much that. Pretty sure that's not what happened in the thread, but it was awhile ago. Oh well.
-
Isnt showing the bible is "god-breathed and infallible", using bible text as proof, merely boot-strapping?
not sure what boot-strapping is, but it sounds bad :lol
A person cant pull himself out of quicksand by pulling his own hair up. He cant pull himself up over a fence by pulling on his own bootstraps. You cant say the bible is infallible and god-breathed because the bible says it is.
Correct.
Bootstrapping = using solely what a source says about itself to prove the point asserted in the source.
Bootstrapping =/= using what a source says as the starting point in proving an argument and testing that assertion against internal and external evidence as a means of proving the point asserted in the source.
-
I'm 99% sure it was before the crash.
Well, I have to repeat that either you misunderstood what I was saying, or you are misremembering. I wouldn't have said that. (unless I was either joking, which I don't believe would have been the case, or unless I simply mispoke)
-
Bootstrapping =/= using what a source says as the starting point in proving an argument and testing that assertion against internal and external evidence as a means of proving the point asserted in the source.
I am still waiting for this.
I'm 99% sure it was before the crash.
It's definitely possible I misremembered. If you're saying your belief is otherwise then that's pretty much that. Pretty sure that's not what happened in the thread, but it was awhile ago. Oh well.
I remember this as well.
-
You're right, I think, that ordinary Christians need to be better informed and have at least some familiarity with biblical scholarship, but what you're suggesting is a sort of sanitized, ignore-all-but-liberal-scholarship version of Christianity, spurred on by people like John Shelby Spong. That's an unnecessary revision.
Why is it unnecessary? If history teaches anything, it's that all religions lose the battle on claims that are objectively verifiable. What's the point of keeping those things silently in, in the hope that the general public once again doesn't care enough to notice? If the Christian churches are really interesting in stopping the drain of people, continually moving the goal post a little isn't gonna cut it.
rumborak
Yeah, but my point is that revisions are not supported by the evidence. Biblical scholarship is bigger than the Jesus Seminar.
-
Bootstrapping =/= using what a source says as the starting point in proving an argument and testing that assertion against internal and external evidence as a means of proving the point asserted in the source.
I am still waiting for this.
??? What do you mean?
I'm 99% sure it was before the crash.
It's definitely possible I misremembered. If you're saying your belief is otherwise then that's pretty much that. Pretty sure that's not what happened in the thread, but it was awhile ago. Oh well.
I remember this as well.
Well, I'm not sure what to tell you. As I said to ehra, I wouldn't have knowingly said that, so either there was a misunderstanding or you are not remembering it correctly. Tell you what, I'll put it this way: Let's assume the misunderstanding was totally on my part. If I said that, I was in error, and *I* misunderstood what was being discussed, so I officially recant any such statement.
-
I mean, I haven't seen an argument for biblical infallibility that wasn't just bootstrapping, or else unconvincing for a myriad of other reasons. Perhaps for infallibility in regards to faith related issues I have, but certainly not for infallibility in regards to historical/scientific ones.
-
Yeah, but my point is that revisions are not supported by the evidence. Biblical scholarship is bigger than the Jesus Seminar.
I don't know. Isn't it almost just a question of time until another Hag Namadi comes around? What you consider currently as "safe interpretations" in the NT rests on thin evidence around the edges, with a good amount of blinders put on. If the churches went out right now and proclaimed "X,Y and Z are eternal and infallible truths", it's just a question of time (and historical evidence) until stuff gets nibbled away.
rumborak
-
I'll probably be in the minority here, but I don't think it'd be such a bad idea of more Churches stopped with those kinds of proclamations.
-
I'm pretty sure the churches would like to lie low themselves too really, but they're forced into answering those questions, because that's what people want to know. I don't think the CC admitted to the heliocentric system out of their own volition.
rumborak
-
PC, please tell me that you don't really think that 1 & 2 Timothy were written by someone named Timothy.
BTW, when Jesus told that rich young man to give away his possessions, that is what he told THAT young man. He never said that was what everyone should do. He told that man this because this man didn't own his possessions; his possessions owned him. This guy needed to give away his possessions because his possessions and his clinging to them were what was keeping him from fully entering the kingdom.
-
PC, please tell me that you don't really think that 1 & 2 Timothy were written by someone named Timothy.
Why would you think that?
EDIT: OH. lol. I forgot that those were supposed to be the writings of Timothy, not writings to him. Forgot about that :lol
-
I agree with PC. any books written by Timothy are totally fallible :lol
-
Yeah, but my point is that revisions are not supported by the evidence. Biblical scholarship is bigger than the Jesus Seminar.
I don't know. Isn't it almost just a question of time until another Hag Namadi comes around? What you consider currently as "safe interpretations" in the NT rests on thin evidence around the edges, with a good amount of blinders put on. If the churches went out right now and proclaimed "X,Y and Z are eternal and infallible truths", it's just a question of time (and historical evidence) until stuff gets nibbled away.
rumborak
"Hag Namadi"? :lol Probably just an accident, but awfully funny. Anyway, Nag Hammadi didn't reveal anything hidden. If anything, it confirmed what we already knew about Gnosticism. Though if one day archaeologists unearth some damning evidence, I'll calmly walk away from the church; but they haven't done it yet.
-
Well, considering that there's no evidence that could hypothetically disprove Jesus' ministry and resurrection, I think there's not going to be much chance of that.
-
Well, considering that there's no evidence that could hypothetically disprove Jesus' ministry and resurrection, I think there's not going to be much chance of that.
Nah. They could find his body buried in Palestine somewhere, or find out that one of the gnostic sects of Christianity was the original. Something like that would do it. But I don't think it will happen.
-
PC, please tell me that you don't really think that 1 & 2 Timothy were written by someone named Timothy.
BTW, when Jesus told that rich young man to give away his possessions, that is what he told THAT young man. He never said that was what everyone should do. He told that man this because this man didn't own his possessions; his possessions owned him. This guy needed to give away his possessions because his possessions and his clinging to them were what was keeping him from fully entering the kingdom.
We've been over this a million times, but I just don't find that argument convincing. The gospels are littered with Jesus' call for rejection of people's every day lives (in order to join him), I don't think that passage is any different.
rumborak
-
Yes, we have been over it a million times, and you are dead wrong.
-
I think the way rumby worded it, though, is pretty accurate.
while it is true that Jesus' specific challenge to the rich man was due to his specific problem, Jesus indeed calls all of his followers to deny themselves, take up their cross and follow him. Whatever in my life I am not willing to surrender to follow him is the very thing I need to surrender.
-
And that's the bottom line, cuz stone bosk said so!
I agree with rumby though. As a Christian, I never understood that passage. It is literal and generalizing for all of mankind?
-
I agree with PC. any books written by Timothy are totally fallible :lol
I may have Herman Cain'd, but my main point still stands. I don't think Timothy includes anything passage that says "The Bible is infallible regarding science/history", but even if it did, I wouldn't see why it would matter.
-
As a Christian, I never understood that passage. It is literal and generalizing for all of mankind?
Literal, yes. For all mankind, no. It is directed at an individual, which should at least raise the question of whether it was what that specific individual needed, or if it is something commanded of everybody. Jesus also told ten lepers to go wash in the river and told a blind man to let Jesus put mud in his eyes. Are those universal commands too? We have to put them in context. Here, three facts strongly suggest that the only reasonable reading of that passage is that it was for that man only. First, it was not the first thing Jesus commanded the man. Jesus only told him this after Jesus had already told him what he must do (which was NOT "go and sell all your stuff"), and the man responded with, "Oh, I'm good then. I've got that covered." [paraphrase] Second, Jesus frequently cited David and Abraham, both of whom were rich, as positive examples. Third, Jesus does not command other rich men he comes into contact with, such as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, for example, to sell all their stuff. It simply cannot be argued that this was a universal command.
However, in the abstract, as Yesh mentioned, Christians are commanded in several passages to give up anything that gets in the way of God in their lives, whether it be money, power, or even family. Although it is never explicitly stated, the context of Jesus' statement to the rich young ruler requires the reader to infer that love of money was precisely what was standing in the rich young ruler's way of serving God. For others, such as Joseph and Nicodemus, it was not.
-
Alright, excellent explanation. Really clear on that point, thanks.
-
I agree with PC. any books written by Timothy are totally fallible :lol
I may have Herman Cain'd, but my main point still stands. I don't think Timothy includes anything passage that says "The Bible is infallible regarding science/history", but even if it did, I wouldn't see why it would matter.
when it says "god-breathed," are you suggesting that God doesn't know anything about science or history?
-
No, I'm suggesting Paul didn't.
Or, that God didn't think it was essential to the spiritual well-being of his people to "correct" their misconceptions about history or science.
And, like I was saying, how does "god-breathed" automatically translate to "100 percent fact in matters of faith, history, and science"? Seems to me that that's kind of a forced interpretation.
Just my two cents.
-
I agree with you about God not seeing it necessary to correct every misconception of man.
but if it really is "god-breathed" than how could it be anything less than accurate?
-
As a Christian, I never understood that passage. It is literal and generalizing for all of mankind?
Literal, yes. For all mankind, no. It is directed at an individual, which should at least raise the question of whether it was what that specific individual needed, or if it is something commanded of everybody. Jesus also told ten lepers to go wash in the river and told a blind man to let Jesus put mud in his eyes. Are those universal commands too? We have to put them in context. Here, three facts strongly suggest that the only reasonable reading of that passage is that it was for that man only. First, it was not the first thing Jesus commanded the man. Jesus only told him this after Jesus had already told him what he must do (which was NOT "go and sell all your stuff"), and the man responded with, "Oh, I'm good then. I've got that covered." [paraphrase] Second, Jesus frequently cited David and Abraham, both of whom were rich, as positive examples. Third, Jesus does not command other rich men he comes into contact with, such as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, for example, to sell all their stuff. It simply cannot be argued that this was a universal command.
However, in the abstract, as Yesh mentioned, Christians are commanded in several passages to give up anything that gets in the way of God in their lives, whether it be money, power, or even family. Although it is never explicitly stated, the context of Jesus' statement to the rich young ruler requires the reader to infer that love of money was precisely what was standing in the rich young ruler's way of serving God. For others, such as Joseph and Nicodemus, it was not.
best explanation of that passage ever.
thanks bosk
-
We've been over this a million times, but I just don't find that argument convincing. The gospels are littered with Jesus' call for rejection of people's every day lives (in order to join him), I don't think that passage is any different.
rumborak
Do you ever get tired of reading the Bible like a fundamentalist?
-
No, I'm suggesting Paul didn't.
Or, that God didn't think it was essential to the spiritual well-being of his people to "correct" their misconceptions about history or science.
And, like I was saying, how does "god-breathed" automatically translate to "100 percent fact in matters of faith, history, and science"? Seems to me that that's kind of a forced interpretation.
Just my two cents.
and if it is just Paul who didn't, Peter said the same thing. "
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (II Pet 1:19-21)
-
We've been over this a million times, but I just don't find that argument convincing. The gospels are littered with Jesus' call for rejection of people's every day lives (in order to join him), I don't think that passage is any different.
rumborak
Do you ever get tired of reading the Bible like a fundamentalist?
I think your ability to ask this question undermines many of the arguments as to why the Bible is true, what it means, etc.
-
I agree with you about God not seeing it necessary to correct every misconception of man.
but if it really is "god-breathed" than how could it be anything less than accurate?
I'll give two separate answers:
1.) We now know beyond reasonable doubt, thanks to the fossil record, carbon dating, etc, that the Earth is over 6,000 years old. So we must choose between two possible scenarios: either God's made the world inaccurate, or God didn't find it necessary to take an active role in correcting the misconceptions his followers had about it all. I find former notion much harder to swallow than the latter, because I can not see for the life of me why God would make the Bible and the Earth contradicting. So, no, I don't really believe that "God-breathed" means the same thing as "God-written," but more like "God-inspired."
Seperate, slightly more roguish answer:
2.) Why does what Paul said matter so much?
@Bosk, I agree that that passage is not a universal command. However, it seems to be like alotalotalot of Christians fail to consider for even a second that they may be seeing some of that anecdotal wealthy-man when they look in the mirror. I guess if I were wealthy, it'd be much more comfortable for me to gravitate toward the idea that I'm more like Joseph or Nicodemus than I am that other guy. Then again, I guess you don't *need* to be wealthy to learn from that parable. Normal people do a pretty good job of letting "things" get in the way of their spiritual health, too.
EDIT:
Back to Yesh,
That's a nice passage, but again I don't see where it says that The Bible is of historical/scientific fact. Peter seems once again to be speaking strictly about matters of faith.
-
We've been over this a million times, but I just don't find that argument convincing. The gospels are littered with Jesus' call for rejection of people's every day lives (in order to join him), I don't think that passage is any different.
rumborak
Do you ever get tired of reading the Bible like a fundamentalist?
I think your ability to ask this question undermines many of the arguments as to why the Bible is true, what it means, etc.
I think your freshman-year philosophy arguments have no place in this discussion.
-
I think your freshman-year philosophy arguments have no place in this discussion.
:rollin
You should really try to be less condescending. Trying to say my argument's are "freshmen-level" is not only fallacious, but wrong.
The bible could very well be the word of god, but unfortunately for God, everyone interpretations things differently. Your augment that you can study the Bible, and thus come to a better, truthful interpretation of the Bible is just flat out fallacious. In the end, when you do that, you're bringing in your life experiences, things that are "outside" of the Bible. In the end, you can only say that you think the bible means this or that, but when you go and say that, "the bible means this," you're just ignoring your subjective perspective.
I mean, you have to ignore history to say that the Bible has a for-sure meaning that you can uncover.
-
@Bosk, I agree that that passage is not a universal command. However, it seems to be like alotalotalot of Christians fail to consider for even a second that they may be seeing some of that anecdotal wealthy-man when they look in the mirror. I guess if I were wealthy, it'd be much more comfortable for me to gravitate toward the idea that I'm more like Joseph or Nicodemus than I am that other guy. Then again, I guess you don't *need* to be wealthy to learn from that parable. Normal people do a pretty good job of letting "things" get in the way of their spiritual health, too.
Absolutely. VERY well said. And I myself am forced to confess my own guilt in that regard.
Too bad the unquoted part of your post is such unabashed rubbish, because this part is actually really good. :biggrin:
-
As am I. I don't have enormous wealth, but I easily spend more time, for example, playing video games then I do thinking about God.
As for the other stuff, as I've said like 2000 times now, I'm still waiting to hear why I'm wrong :lol I know people are busy and it's a big question, but even if someone could link me to a good article I'd at least read it. I'm not expecting someone to waste the time with a huge response when I'm probably just going to disagree anyway.
...Or if that's already been discussed/debated here in detail, I'd love to see the thread.
-
I think your freshman-year philosophy arguments have no place in this discussion.
:rollin
You should really try to be less condescending. Trying to say my argument's are "freshmen-level" is not only fallacious, but wrong.
Well, let's have a look.
The bible could very well be the word of god, but unfortunately for God, everyone interpretations things differently. Your augment that you can study the Bible, and thus come to a better, truthful interpretation of the Bible is just flat out fallacious.
That doesn't mean that one interpretation can't be the correct one.
In the end, when you do that, you're bringing in your life experiences, things that are "outside" of the Bible.
Those "outside" influences are the works of historians and experts in the languages the Bible was written in.
In the end, you can only say that you think the bible means this or that, but when you go and say that, "the bible means this," you're just ignoring your subjective perspective.
No, I'm not. I am very aware that there are multiple interpretations of many biblical passages, and regularly study different perspectives. Indeed I'm willing to, and have, change my views. What you're describing sounds like thinly veiled relativism; it's freshman philosophy hackery and it's laughed at by historians who study this stuff for a living, whatever their theological views.
I mean, you have to ignore history to say that the Bible has a for-sure meaning that you can uncover.
I don't. And I can't possibly think of what would lead you to that conclusion.
-
That doesn't mean that one interpretation can't be the correct one.
But how are you going to know it's the right one? People study the bible for their entire lives, and they come up with different understandings, and they still end up disagreeing with each other. I agree that there is one interpretation that can for all practical purposes be described as the "correct one," but just like the truth, while it's out there, there isn't very good access to it.
You're also being extremely naive if you think that the only outside influences are historians you choose to read. Your whole life is influencing how you interprets the bible, including how you interpret those experts you cite. The language you natively uses influences how you view the world in very fundamental way, and there's no getting around that. The society you grew up in also radically changes how you interpret the bible. Hell, the food you ate this morning effects how you interpret the bible. Furthermore, those historians and experts have their opinion, but that in no way means it's the correct interpretation. The bible was written in a language you don't know, in a world you can't relate to, and for reasons that frankly, you're only guessing and imaging is true because of faith. I'd say all these reasons are enough to throw into complete doubt your supposed rock solid interpretation of the bible.
I mean look, numerous people will use your exact same argument and come up with different responses. They're all supposed to be right, they're all suppose to have the correct interpretation. Imagine your an outsider, you're just getting into the mater, and you want to know who to trust. There's gonna be no reliable or rational way to distinguish between the interpretation's being presented, they're going to be researched, they're going to be carefully thought out, etc. And this is just staying within the confines of Christianity!
I don't. And I can't possibly think of what would lead you to that conclusion.
As someone who has studied history, and not biblical history, I'm quite aware of the changes and alterations made to the way the bible is interpreted. Interpretations of the bible have changed along with the society, and reflects social and cultural realities, and not some supposed "truth" that you can uncover in the Bible. Different societies and cultures interpret the Bible differently, according to their values, and they can justify their interpretation by pointing to the Bible. I mean, the Bible isn't a small essay, and anything that is of considerable length is going to automatically spark differing interpretations becuase people are going to hold onto different parts of the text, and hold them in greater importance.
-
That doesn't mean that one interpretation can't be the correct one.
But how are you going to know it's the right one? People study the bible for their entire lives, and they come up with different understandings, and they still end up disagreeing with each other. I agree that there is one interpretation that can for all practical purposes be described as the "correct one," but just like the truth, while it's out there, there isn't very good access to it.
No. Precisely because the Bible has been the focus of such extensive (and critical) study, we know a lot about it. Fr example, when it was written, who (in many cases) wrote the books in it, what those people were teaching, etc. We also have, because we can place the events in the Bible in a secular historical setting, a lot of background information about the culture and the people described in the Bible. That helps us understand what they believed and why they did the things they did.
Mind you, this all comes from the very concept you suggest should make the truth difficult to discover - different schools of thought arguing with each other in books and scholarly journals for the last 200 years.
You're also being extremely naive if you think that the only outside influences are historians you choose to read. Your whole life is influencing how you interprets the bible, including how you interpret those experts you cite. The language you natively uses influences how you view the world in very fundamental way, and there's no getting around that. The society you grew up in also radically changes how you interpret the bible. Hell, the food you ate this morning effects how you interpret the bible. Furthermore, those historians and experts have their opinion, but that in no way means it's the correct interpretation. The bible was written in a language you don't know, in a world you can't relate to, and for reasons that frankly, you're only guessing and imaging is true because of faith. I'd say all these reasons are enough to throw into complete doubt your supposed rock solid interpretation of the bible.
Things like my native language and upbringing as influences go without saying. But that's precisely why I don't rely on those things when studying the Bible. True, the book was written in several languages I don't know, but many people I know of and some I know personally do know those languages. Furthermore, I may not be able to relate to the ancient world, but I can learn a lot about it from people who spend their lives studying it, and for under $20 on Amazon. So, no, I'm not guessing at the truth because I want to believe. My views about Christianity are pretty solidly grounded, and I suggest you venture into one of our threads about the Bible around here if you doubt that.
But if you want to argue that your reasons are enough to throw my interpretation into complete doubt, then I humbly submit that most of what you know about great thinkers and leaders of the past, the various philosophical schools, and so forth is plagued by the same subjective circle jerk you're challenging me with - and in a worse way.
I mean look, numerous people will use your exact same argument and come up with different responses. They're all supposed to be right, they're all suppose to have the correct interpretation. Imagine your an outsider, you're just getting into the mater, and you want to know who to trust. There's gonna be no reliable or rational way to distinguish between the interpretation's being presented, they're going to be researched, they're going to be carefully thought out, etc. And this is just staying within the confines of Christianity!
Since you interjected when I responded to rumborak, let's use that as an example. Reading the text in English and German, rumbo was attempting to give definitive interpretations of certain passages in the NT. I and several others pointed out precisely why this wouldn't work (doesn't account for the original language, cultural setting, relevant history) and provided multiple scholarly sources to support the arguments. He responded incredulously, accusing us of ignoring the very obvious meaning of the text. In a situation like that, I say it is very possible to know whose interpretation is correct.
I don't. And I can't possibly think of what would lead you to that conclusion.
As someone who has studied history, and not biblical history, I'm quite aware of the changes and alterations made to the way the bible is interpreted. Interpretations of the bible have changed along with the society, and reflects social and cultural realities, and not some supposed "truth" that you can uncover in the Bible. Different societies and cultures interpret the Bible differently, according to their values, and they can justify their interpretation by pointing to the Bible. I mean, the Bible isn't a small essay, and anything that is of considerable length is going to automatically spark differing interpretations becuase people are going to hold onto different parts of the text, and hold them in greater importance.
[/quote]
-
No. Precisely because the Bible has been the focus of such extensive (and critical) study, we know a lot about it. Fr example, when it was written, who (in many cases) wrote the books in it, what those people were teaching, etc. We also have, because we can place the events in the Bible in a secular historical setting, a lot of background information about the culture and the people described in the Bible. That helps us understand what they believed and why they did the things they did. .
Yet there are still such varying interpretations on so many aspects of the bible.
I think that is Sheavos point.
-
No. Precisely because the Bible has been the focus of such extensive (and critical) study, we know a lot about it. Fr example, when it was written, who (in many cases) wrote the books in it, what those people were teaching, etc. We also have, because we can place the events in the Bible in a secular historical setting, a lot of background information about the culture and the people described in the Bible. That helps us understand what they believed and why they did the things they did. .
Yet there are still such varying interpretations on so many aspects of the bible.
I think that is Sheavos point.
Yep. I mean, look at Indian philosophy/religion (in India, the two aren't properly separated, which, in my opinion, is more proper). They have like four thousand years of written and oral history surrounding their viewpoints; it's a highly philosophical society, one where debate is constant. And ya know what? After thousands of years of debating, arguing, and trying to convince each other that this is the truth, they're no closer now than they were. Philosophy in general has been at it, in our history, for a good 2,500 years; you've had thousands of philosophers giving their arguments, spending their lives considering the truth, reading texts, etc, and yet no two philosophers will really even agree on what philosophy is or who a philosopher is! Then, arguably, Heidegger in the last century basically overturned just about everything those 2,500 years of philosophy worked to do.
The truth is that there is no truth.
You're also being extremely naive if you think that the only outside influences are historians you choose to read. Your whole life is influencing how you interprets the bible, including how you interpret those experts you cite. The language you natively uses influences how you view the world in very fundamental way, and there's no getting around that. The society you grew up in also radically changes how you interpret the bible. Hell, the food you ate this morning effects how you interpret the bible. Furthermore, those historians and experts have their opinion, but that in no way means it's the correct interpretation. The bible was written in a language you don't know, in a world you can't relate to, and for reasons that frankly, you're only guessing and imaging is true because of faith. I'd say all these reasons are enough to throw into complete doubt your supposed rock solid interpretation of the bible.
Things like my native language and upbringing as influences go without saying. But that's precisely why I don't rely on those things when studying the Bible. True, the book was written in several languages I don't know, but many people I know of and some I know personally do know those languages. Furthermore, I may not be able to relate to the ancient world, but I can learn a lot about it from people who spend their lives studying it, and for under $20 on Amazon. So, no, I'm not guessing at the truth because I want to believe. My views about Christianity are pretty solidly grounded, and I suggest you venture into one of our threads about the Bible around here if you doubt that.
You can't not simply decide to get rid of all your memories and experiences when studying the bible, you can try and mitigate those effects, but it's impossible for you to get rid of them fully. Also, I have never once questioned that you've studied the bible, or that you don't have a researched opinion on the matter, nor that your opinion is not more valid than other persons; my point was simply that this does not make it the truth. People disagree, constantly, about what the Bible means in it's entirety. Oh sure, you can point to passages, and explain what they mean, and why they mean it, but you still have to ascribe the Bible as a whole. I could have all the parts to make a car, but unless I put them together in the right way, it ain't gonna be a car; you may have a fairly good understanding of each passage in the Bible, but unless you can piece them together in the right way, it ain't gonna be the truth.
But if you want to argue that your reasons are enough to throw my interpretation into complete doubt, then I humbly submit that most of what you know about great thinkers and leaders of the past, the various philosophical schools, and so forth is plagued by the same subjective circle jerk you're challenging me with - and in a worse way.
So? What does that have to do with anything? I'm not pointing to dogma to make my point, I'm not saying that you're wrong because Aristotle says this. What I'm saying is you shouldn't take such a high and mighty attitude towards your interpretation, or that you're ever going to get "the one" interpretation.
Also, philosophy can't be pried away from theology; theology is inherently philosophical; so if philosophy is plagued by the problems I describe, so is theology.
Here's a different question: why should be a Christian and not, say, a Hindu or a Buddhist? Arguably, Hinduism and Buddhism have a longer history, and one full of debate, research, and thoughts on the matter. They too have ancient texts, whose contextual meaning can be gotten at, and which are used as a source of Truth.
-
Literal, yes. For all mankind, no. It is directed at an individual, which should at least raise the question of whether it was what that specific individual needed, or if it is something commanded of everybody. Jesus also told ten lepers to go wash in the river and told a blind man to let Jesus put mud in his eyes. Are those universal commands too? We have to put them in context. Here, three facts strongly suggest that the only reasonable reading of that passage is that it was for that man only. First, it was not the first thing Jesus commanded the man. Jesus only told him this after Jesus had already told him what he must do (which was NOT "go and sell all your stuff"), and the man responded with, "Oh, I'm good then. I've got that covered." [paraphrase] Second, Jesus frequently cited David and Abraham, both of whom were rich, as positive examples. Third, Jesus does not command other rich men he comes into contact with, such as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, for example, to sell all their stuff. It simply cannot be argued that this was a universal command.
However, in the abstract, as Yesh mentioned, Christians are commanded in several passages to give up anything that gets in the way of God in their lives, whether it be money, power, or even family. Although it is never explicitly stated, the context of Jesus' statement to the rich young ruler requires the reader to infer that love of money was precisely what was standing in the rich young ruler's way of serving God. For others, such as Joseph and Nicodemus, it was not.
In the end, both interpretations are possible, the above and mine (as evidenced in this thread). What it comes down to is whether you want to see these examples as separate, non-related events, or whether you view them as pieces of an over-arching theme. You (bosky) and WW are insanely dismissive about any of the competing theories, but monks across the world viewed it the same, that Jesus asked for rejection of "normal" life.
As you say even yourself, "Christians are commanded in several passages to give up anything that gets in the way of God in their lives". But, let's be honest, do you really think the average modern Christian would have passed the muster as set by Jesus? I just have a really hard time imagining that an itinerant prophet who himself rejected everything and lived in what is best described as a commune, would view the life of luxury and comfort in modern society as NOT "getting in the way of God".
rumborak
-
What it comes down to is whether you want to see these examples as separate, non-related events, or whether you view them as pieces of an over-arching theme. You (bosky) and WW are insanely dismissive about any of the competing theories, but monks across the world viewed it the same, that Jesus asked for rejection of "normal" life.
To be fair, all of those monasteries are voluntary, and none of those monks have ever preached to anyone that everyone should be a monk. If some people think that, for them, the path to the kingdom involves giving up everything and joining a monastery, then it does. For them.
I would suspect that the monks would agree with us instead of you on this topic.
-
I finally get to say it, rumborak. I've made a good case from the text, scholars agree...and so does Hef, DTF Bible geek extraordinaire. Wham-my!
-
I finally get to say it, rumborak. I've made a good case from the text, scholars agree...and so does Hef, DTF Bible geek extraordinaire. Wham-my!
Just from my point of view of course...but by this response, I really dont think you get it. You are all about showing your interpretation to be "correct". We arent saying you arent correct...just that might not be correct. We are merely saying that there are many varying and valid interpretations. To be so smug in yours is pretty off-putting.
-
Just from my point of view of course...but by this response, I really dont think you get it. You are all about showing your interpretation to be "correct". We arent saying you arent correct...just that might not be correct. We are merely saying that there are many varying and valid interpretations.
How do you know that? Have you researched all these "valid" interpretations?
To be so smug in yours is pretty off-putting.
I truly don't care. :)
-
Just from my point of view of course...but by this response, I really dont think you get it. You are all about showing your interpretation to be "correct". We arent saying you arent correct...just that might not be correct. We are merely saying that there are many varying and valid interpretations.
How do you know that? Have you researched all these "valid" interpretations?
Here's one for you, that you're not considering:
Interpreting the Bible not as the word of God, but as someone's personal philosophy. No amount of research into the Bible is going to give you that answer, and such an outlook drastically changes how you interpret and read the Bible.
-
How do you know that? Have you researched all these "valid" interpretations?
Obviously, neither have you.
EDIT: as sheavo points out above.
I truly don't care. :)
That is obvious. Im sure jesus would love that attitude. :lol
-
Frankly, I skip over most post of your posts these days, WW. You oscillate between hidden personal attacks and smugness born out of intellectual laziness.
rumborak
-
That is obvious. Im sure jesus would love that attitude. :lol
Not saying WW is right or not, but the thinly veiled "I don't particularly like what you have to say, so I'm sure my misconception of who Jesus is wouldn't like it either" argument is pretty weak.
-
Here's one for you, that you're not considering:
Interpreting the Bible not as the word of God, but as someone's personal philosophy. No amount of research into the Bible is going to give you that answer, and such an outlook drastically changes how you interpret and read the Bible.
More post-modernist, Woodstock-attending, I'm-okay-you're-okay pseudo philosophy. Describing the Bible as the word of God is an anachronism adopted way after the facts by the church. It's a history book that describes events, wait for it, rooted in history. As such, it's open to critical study from many different perspectives. But to suggest that that prohibits us from determining what actually happened is not an argument. You're confusing facts with their interpretations, and historians have long rejected your position as inadequate.
That is obvious. Im sure jesus would love that attitude. :lol
Ironically, yes, he'd probably find it acceptable. Engaging in challenge-riposte, as it's know, was very common in the cultural world of the Bible. Jesus even engaged in the process.
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Calling the Ph.Ds of his day hypocrites and ignoramuses. Man, how un-Christian of Jesus.
-
Here's one for you, that you're not considering:
Interpreting the Bible not as the word of God, but as someone's personal philosophy. No amount of research into the Bible is going to give you that answer, and such an outlook drastically changes how you interpret and read the Bible.
More post-modernist, Woodstock-attending, I'm-okay-you're-okay pseudo philosophy. Describing the Bible as the word of God is an anachronism adopted way after the facts by the church. It's a history book that describes events, wait for it, rooted in history. As such, it's open to critical study from many different perspectives. But to suggest that that prohibits us from determining what actually happened is not an argument. You're confusing facts with their interpretations, and historians have long rejected your position as inadequate.
So, now the Bible is a history book? Then why are you reading it theologically / religiously? If you want to read the bible to uncover the history of the time, you have to leave God out of the fucking equation. I have never once said that the Bible isn't somewhat historically accurate, I'm quite sure a man, named something like Jesus, created a movement, and got executed. That's a completely different matter than saying that the Bible is a religious text, and that reading it can get you closer to some spiritual truth about existence.
Proving that the Bible accurately describes some historical events in no way, shape or form prove that the rest of the ethical, moral and religious aspects of the Bible are thus proven to be accurate. I can't even fathom how you can think that this is true.
Didn't Jesus teach humility? Or is that too going to be swept away under some guise of context?
-
That is obvious. Im sure jesus would love that attitude. :lol
Not saying WW is right or not, but the thinly veiled "I don't particularly like what you have to say, so I'm sure my misconception of who Jesus is wouldn't like it either" argument is pretty weak.
You thought that was my arguement?
HA! It wasnt an arguement.
Hence the :lol after it.
Kind of surprised you and WW took it so seriously.
-
Here's one for you, that you're not considering:
Interpreting the Bible not as the word of God, but as someone's personal philosophy. No amount of research into the Bible is going to give you that answer, and such an outlook drastically changes how you interpret and read the Bible.
More post-modernist, Woodstock-attending, I'm-okay-you're-okay pseudo philosophy. Describing the Bible as the word of God is an anachronism adopted way after the facts by the church. It's a history book that describes events, wait for it, rooted in history. As such, it's open to critical study from many different perspectives. But to suggest that that prohibits us from determining what actually happened is not an argument. You're confusing facts with their interpretations, and historians have long rejected your position as inadequate.
So, now the Bible is a history book?
It always has been. The fact that this is news to you doesn't actually make it news.
Then why are you reading it theologically / religiously? If you want to read the bible to uncover the history of the time, you have to leave God out of the fucking equation.
No. That's the entire point, making arguments in defense of the theological and ethical claims based on the available evidence.
I have never once said that the Bible isn't somewhat historically accurate, I'm quite sure a man, named something like Jesus, created a movement, and got executed. That's a completely different matter than saying that the Bible is a religious text, and that reading it can get you closer to some spiritual truth about existence.
Why can't it be a religious and historical text? I see no good reason why the two must be separated.
Proving that the Bible accurately describes some historical events in no way, shape or form prove that the rest of the ethical, moral and religious aspects of the Bible are thus proven to be accurate. I can't even fathom how you can think that this is true.
I would agree, for example, that the Bible's accurate description of the crucifixion in no way vindicates the resurrection accounts. I've never done that. Though I've argued that the religious aspects can be adequately defended on historical grounds. Just so we're clear, are you suggesting that there's no way to know what actually happened in the First Century, or that the theological ideas can't be supported by history?
Didn't Jesus teach humility? Or is that too going to be swept away under some guise of context?
Yes, that pesky context does have a way of eliminating misconceptions. But that's no excuse to avoid my defense of how I deal with people who are skeptical of Christianity. And some vague reference to humility doesn't cut it.
-
If you want to read the bible to uncover the history of the time, you have to leave God out of the fucking equation.
??? :lol How would you do that exactly since the Bible is basically a historical biography of God. That would be like reading a biography of Abraham Lincoln, and saying, "well, this civil war stuff is cool, and I like the parts about John Wilkes Boothe, but I'm going to just skip right over the parts about Abe and make this a quick read."
-
If you want to read the bible to uncover the history of the time, you have to leave God out of the fucking equation.
??? :lol How would you do that exactly since the Bible is basically a historical biography of God. That would be like reading a biography of Abraham Lincoln, and saying, "well, this civil war stuff is cool, and I like the parts about John Wilkes Boothe, but I'm going to just skip right over the parts about Abe and make this a quick read."
Actually, that's my point. WW was basically trying to take God out of the Bible, becuase my point was that you are both reading it assuming that God is a relevant factor in the Bible. As an agnostic, I completely disagree with the assessment that the Bible is a biography of "God," as I don't believe in the existence of God. Which drastically changes how I interpret the Bible, and it drastically changes how both of you interpret the Bible. For me, it's a historical biography of some dude, and that's a big difference.
Don't you see how your faith is the only thing that allows you to make that statement, that it's a biography of God? Only to a Christian and a believer is the NT a biography of God.
It always has been. The fact that this is news to you doesn't actually make it news.
Then why are you reading it theologically / religiously? If you want to read the bible to uncover the history of the time, you have to leave God out of the fucking equation.
No. That's the entire point, making arguments in defense of the theological and ethical claims based on the available evidence.
But see, now you're changing the issue. History and theology are completely different area's of knowledge; one requires faith, one does not. Like I already argued before, the Hindu's have just as great of history as yours, and their text also pretends to be religious and theological in nature; yet the two vastly disagree, and the only way for you to assume that the historical proving of events gives any credibility to any theological or ethical claim is to already assume the existence of God. If I believed God existed, if, then it follows that a historical recounting of those events is evidence for anything theological or ethical.
I mean, does proving Plato or Socrates existed, and learning about their culture, history, etc, in any way verify or make true their ethical theories? The two are disjointed events; history is simply what happened, whereas ethics is really non-temporal.
I have never once said that the Bible isn't somewhat historically accurate, I'm quite sure a man, named something like Jesus, created a movement, and got executed. That's a completely different matter than saying that the Bible is a religious text, and that reading it can get you closer to some spiritual truth about existence.
Why can't it be a religious and historical text? I see no good reason why the two must be separated.
They can be both, but it can still be historical without being religious. For it to be a religious text (as in in true) requires a faith in God existence, specifically the Christian god. I don't find it surprising that you see now good reason, becuase you believe in God.
Proving that the Bible accurately describes some historical events in no way, shape or form prove that the rest of the ethical, moral and religious aspects of the Bible are thus proven to be accurate. I can't even fathom how you can think that this is true.
I would agree, for example, that the Bible's accurate description of the crucifixion in no way vindicates the resurrection accounts. I've never done that. Though I've argued that the religious aspects can be adequately defended on historical grounds. Just so we're clear, are you suggesting that there's no way to know what actually happened in the First Century, or that the theological ideas can't be supported by history?
That the theological idea's can't be proven by history; proven being specifically used, because you can support your theology given history. If you believe in God, then historical events could certainly be used in support of your faith, but it is not proof of God's existence, and so it is not a way to ascertain the proper way to interpret the Bible.
Didn't Jesus teach humility? Or is that too going to be swept away under some guise of context?
Yes, that pesky context does have a way of eliminating misconceptions. But that's no excuse to avoid my defense of how I deal with people who are skeptical of Christianity. And some vague reference to humility doesn't cut it.
Your actual defense of your argument is fine, I'm just asking that you not be so smug and condescending about it. "Freshmen-level philosophy," and all that nonsense, is not your argument, it's a way for you to try and belittle me, and is in no way humble.
-
Only to a Christian and a believer is the NT a biography of God.
Well, not really. It is a biography of God whether anyone believes it or not, just like a biography of Abraham Lincoln is a biography of Abraham Lincoln whether I believe it or not. But I can read it, and examine the evidence it presents, and the external historical evidence, and decide whether or not I believe it is true. That's pretty much what faith is. Most just don't recognize that they are exercising it every day.
-
Only to a Christian and a believer is the NT a biography of God.
Well, not really. It is a biography of God whether anyone believes it or not, just like a biography of Abraham Lincoln is a biography of Abraham Lincoln whether I believe it or not. But I can read it, and examine the evidence it presents, and the external historical evidence, and decide whether or not I believe it is true. That's pretty much what faith is. Most just don't recognize that they are exercising it every day.
Yeah, this.
Scheavo, I think we're getting somewhere. We were talking past each other a bit. My point is that my arguments in defense of Christianity don't assume anything. I can make a good case for the miraculous claims in the NT based specifically on what we know about the events. In fact, that's why I find your arguments so objectionable. If the those claims can be validated, then I don't have to start with "assuming God exists..." As I said, I would never dream of arguing that because Jesus was a real person that by default he's the son of god.
Personally, I have no problem walking away from the faith. I nearly did once and only returned to it after my intellect was satisfied. You're right to point out that the way we accumulate knowledge is subjective, but I don't see a reason why that prevents religious people from reaching an objective truth, especially if we're conscious of critical opinions on these matters.
-
Only to a Christian and a believer is the NT a biography of God.
Well, not really. It is a biography of God whether anyone believes it or not, just like a biography of Abraham Lincoln is a biography of Abraham Lincoln whether I believe it or not. But I can read it, and examine the evidence it presents, and the external historical evidence, and decide whether or not I believe it is true. That's pretty much what faith is. Most just don't recognize that they are exercising it every day.
Yeah, this.
Scheavo, I think we're getting somewhere. We were talking past each other a bit. My point is that my arguments in defense of Christianity don't assume anything. I can make a good case for the miraculous claims in the NT based specifically on what we know about the events. In fact, that's why I find your arguments so objectionable. If the those claims can be validated, then I don't have to start with "assuming God exists..." As I said, I would never dream of arguing that because Jesus was a real person that by default he's the son of god.
Well, testimonial evidence from 2000 years ago isn't very convincing to me of the truth (nor is testimonial evidence too convincing for me if my neighbor tried to tell me something incredulous). For starters, modern psychology has shown memory to be a rather... fickle.. thing. It's rather easy to implant a memory, or change a memory, drastically by simply asking the question in the appropriate way. I don't know about you, but I have friends who change the account of an event every time they tell it, and by the end, they forget the original event to a very large degree. For another, there many now known natural phenomenon that used to be given supernatural sources; so that witnesses could have all witnessed the same thing, and then ascribed it to a supernatural deity because of scientific ignorance. The fact then that there are several accounts of the same event in no way proves that those events were caused supernaturally. Such events still occur today, and science has to step in to explain the events, and why they are natural events, and understandable according to natural laws. By collaborating evidence, you at best prove that an historical event happened in some fashion, but you do not prove that the event attested to was true. I mean, people today swear they see Jesus in fucking TOAST; and while it's ridiculous, and I don't think you have to try and explain those people (cause they're crazy), you do have to prove how the testimonial evidence you point to was not written by people who basically see Jesus in toast.
To get more specific, I think it's very possible that there was some sort of event that led to the stories behind the flood of Noah. Numerous cultures ascribe something akin to it, but stories have a way of getting exaggerated (telephone, anyone?). But there are many plausible natural way to explain how people around the globe could speak of a "flood," while there not actually have been a giant flood that took over the globe. Just like I think the mythology around fantasy creatures (dwarfs, ogres, trolls, elves, etc), likely has some ground in reality (we know we lived with neanderthals, large brutish, ogre like hominids), we've found a small diminished species (halfings, dwarfs, gnomes, etc), and we've found evidence for another species of hominids that lives the same time as us (I believe I remember hearing most Asians have DNA from this mystery hominid). Myths and legends have some ground in reality, but the actual event and truth is probably far different than what comes about in the myth.
Now, if you want to get Spinoza on me, and say that those natural laws are "God," I wouldn't really disagree with you on that count.
If God exists, why do we need to point to history to prove his existence? Where is God now? It seems to me that if proof of God's existence is possible (which I'm highly doubtful of), then we shouldn't need historical accounts to prove his existence, becuase we should be able to prove it now.
I was thinking about bringing up this point earlier, but it seems to fit in with this post rather well:
Compare your arguments, and the logic being presented, to that of science. You argue that by looking at historical evidence, comparing them, and pointing to area's of agreement, people can come to consensus about what is true, what happened, etc, yes? But we don't see that as happening, Christians don't agree with each other very much, and non-Christians don't agree with, well, Christians. Compare that to the scientific method, where the same logic, and the same principles, lead to consensus, and has had amazing power at changing our lives, and proving the existence of things no readily seen (radiation, for example).
@Bosk: do you really want to compare the evidence for Abraham Lincoln existing to the evidence for God's existence?
*edit*
Thought of a interesting point to make. Another reason I would distinguish the ethics portrayed in the bible, from it's history, and from it's theology, is because in terms of actual morality and ethics, I'm, as far as I can tell, pretty damn "Christian." I'm that despite the fact that I was never once in my life ever subjected to the Bible; I have never attended a Christian ceremony, my parents never once talked to me about it, and basically grew up in a completely agnostic household. And when I say that, I by no means think that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, and find the whole concept of God, and knowing if it exists, preposterous to actually know - or defined in such a way as to render theology moot.
-
@Bosk: do you really want to compare the evidence for Abraham Lincoln existing to the evidence for God's existence?
Well, granted the evidence of Abraham Lincoln existing isn't quite as strong, comparatively, but there's still more than ample evidence to credibly believe he existed too.
-
What evidence is stronger for God's existence than Abraham Lincolns?
*edit*
By the way, I say that being honestly not sure if you're joking or not, and I don't mean to be rude.
-
What evidence is stronger for God's existence than Abraham Lincolns?
Hey- get in the back of the line. I'm still waiting on Biblical Infallibility and Timothy*.
*As well as various answers/responses to various PMs and other conversations, both recently and some longer ago, like, "what do you consider to be a suite, then?" Even though that I so long ago I might as well just let it go now (insert winky-smilie-guy here)
-
Wait, what are we discussing? Are we discussing apologetics for the truth of Christianity? Or are we discussing whether the text of the Bible is infallible? Or are we discussing whether history can be separated from theology within the text? Because those are three separate subjects which don't necessarily have anything to do with one another, and I think that some of them are getting confused within the conversation.
-
We're discussing why young people leave church, and, if I follow correctly, some people are pointing out the churches inability to grapple with those issues that Christians themselves disagree on as one reason why the faith is getting weaker.
-
We're discussing why young people leave church, and, if I follow correctly, some people are pointing out the churches inability to grapple with those issues that Christians themselves disagree on as one reason why the faith is getting weaker.
Yes, but I meant specifically.
-
Hef, in terms of having a philosophical and/or theological discussion, I complete get where you are coming from, and I agree with the distinction you are making. But when it comes to practical application of those separate areas, they of course will blur together.
-
Wait, what are we discussing? Are we discussing apologetics for the truth of Christianity? Or are we discussing whether the text of the Bible is infallible? Or are we discussing whether history can be separated from theology within the text? Because those are three separate subjects which don't necessarily have anything to do with one another, and I think that some of them are getting confused within the conversation.
I think all of the above, plus a few others. I agree they can be treated differently, but they all run together when the discussion surround ways to interpret the Bible, why to interpret them that way, etc.
-
^ nice post time-stamp
I haven't "left" the church in an absolute, "I'm done with this" way, but I am in no way a good Catholic. I rarely pray, I don't attend mass, I don't read the Bible and I don't truly believe.
I guess in my case it stems from the fact that my parents never forced religion on us (my siblings and I) as children. Sure, we attended catholic school and attended the important masses, and took part in rites and ceremonies, but we never did outside of school.
Because of this, religion was always something I just never thought about. I mean, it seems silly, from a logical point of view, that an all powerful god who lives in the heavens created everything and knows everything about me and my life (especially with the theory of evolution).
religion just doesn't have any place in my life. I don't practice my faith, I don't study my religion. I don't know what else I can say about it, or how to justify it any differently.
It's just not something I'm interest in, or particularly think has any great impact on my life.
-
Because of this, religion was always something I just never thought about. I mean, it seems silly, from a logical point of view, that an all powerful god who lives in the heavens created everything and knows everything about me and my life (especially with the theory of evolution).
For me it was also that an omniscient and omnipotent being would be so vain to require worship, and resort to blackmail to enforce it.
Soon after I also realized that the vanity lied (as usual) with the humans, who considered themselves so special in the universe that God *clearly* must love us, and thus we're the only thing in the universe worth being loved by.
rumborak
-
Because of this, religion was always something I just never thought about. I mean, it seems silly, from a logical point of view, that an all powerful god who lives in the heavens created everything and knows everything about me and my life (especially with the theory of evolution).
For me it was also that an omniscient and omnipotent being would be so vain to require worship, and resort to blackmail to enforce it.
rumborak
Same here. I was never made to go into religion and have never believed in it. However, I have no problem with others choosing to believe in it, what with freedom of faith. Overall, I wouldn't say religion or non-religion is something I really think about. It's not something I see thrown around much outside of people debating about it in the media.
-
yeah, I don't begrudge anyone their faith or beliefs, just because I don't want to participate
but not being a religious person really makes it hard to understand the.. fervor with which some people practice their faith (i.e. extremists, etc)
-
I lost faith in the church at a very young age because of disconnect and the hypocrisy.
Years later when I discovered that God is bigger than the stick figure I had learned about, my life and fervor have been pointed up.
-
^ nice post time-stamp
I haven't "left" the church in an absolute, "I'm done with this" way, but I am in no way a good Catholic. I rarely pray, I don't attend mass, I don't read the Bible and I don't truly believe.
I guess in my case it stems from the fact that my parents never forced religion on us (my siblings and I) as children. Sure, we attended catholic school and attended the important masses, and took part in rites and ceremonies, but we never did outside of school.
Because of this, religion was always something I just never thought about. I mean, it seems silly, from a logical point of view, that an all powerful god who lives in the heavens created everything and knows everything about me and my life (especially with the theory of evolution).
religion just doesn't have any place in my life. I don't practice my faith, I don't study my religion. I don't know what else I can say about it, or how to justify it any differently.
It's just not something I'm interest in, or particularly think has any great impact on my life.
I wonder if there is any data available on people who did not have religion "forced" on them as children and whether they became religious in later life.
-
As a child, I found going to church to be torture. Each mass was practically the same thing....word for word.
It all seemed to just be wrote memorization of silly procedure. As I grew older I realized that is exactly what it was.
After reading on the subject from the point of view of believers and non-believers, including those here at DTF, I can fully respect their personal views...and can even, in most cases, even understand why they feel as they do.
The one thing I just cant get my intellect and heart/mind to get past is the view many have of what god is. I do not believe that we can have an understanding of what god truly is, at least at this point in time. I also believe that there is tons of life in the universe....and cant believe we are his special pets.
Most importantly, I cant get past a god that requires the obedience and worship shown in many religions. I dont require such things from my dog, why should the creator of everything require it from us developed apes?
The religious view of god always struck me as how man would act if given that power.
I have always said that I prefer my god to be more enlightened than myself.
I fully understand the need for us to understand, and the need to have answers to questions we cant answer. I understand that some need the comfort religion gives......personally I dont.
JMO
-
^ nice post time-stamp
I haven't "left" the church in an absolute, "I'm done with this" way, but I am in no way a good Catholic. I rarely pray, I don't attend mass, I don't read the Bible and I don't truly believe.
I guess in my case it stems from the fact that my parents never forced religion on us (my siblings and I) as children. Sure, we attended catholic school and attended the important masses, and took part in rites and ceremonies, but we never did outside of school.
Because of this, religion was always something I just never thought about. I mean, it seems silly, from a logical point of view, that an all powerful god who lives in the heavens created everything and knows everything about me and my life (especially with the theory of evolution).
religion just doesn't have any place in my life. I don't practice my faith, I don't study my religion. I don't know what else I can say about it, or how to justify it any differently.
It's just not something I'm interest in, or particularly think has any great impact on my life.
I wonder if there is any data available on people who did not have religion "forced" on them as children and whether they became religious in later life.
My sisters and I never got religion forced upon us. Atheists, all.
-
People leave churches because churches are head up by people. People who distort truth. People who don't know what truth is. People who promote there own agenda. People who serve the God of self.
Somewhere out there is the absolute truth but man is too flawed to be able to deliver that truth.
End of story.
-
People leave churches because churches are head up by people. People who distort truth. People who don't know what truth is. People who promote there own agenda. People who serve the God of self.
Somewhere out there is the absolute truth but man is too flawed to be able to deliver that truth.
End of story.
This exactly. No-one knows the absolute truth about God, because it's impossible for us to fully understand. People who go to place that claim to teach the whole Truth are bound to be disappointing at the end, because the promise can't be delivered.
-
also agree...I would only add that Scripture declares that it is "truth" and therefore (from that perspective) I can know where to find truth, though my understanding of it is what can be flawed.
-
also agree...I would only add that Scripture declares that it is "truth" and therefore (from that perspective) I can know where to find truth, though my understanding of it is what can be flawed.
This is a problem I have with truth and religious texts like the bible. I totally get why someone would want to find the ultimate truth. But something as important as the ultimate truth should have been revealed in a manner where it cant be misinterpreted. The bible is exposed to the flaws of man in so many ways; from observation to expression to translation to interpretation....all over thousands of years, thousands of people, and many different cultures and values. It is like the piece of evidence in my capital murder case. It is of the utmost importance. But if the chain of custody of the evidence resembles the one like the bible, I wouldnt be willing to stake my life on it.
-
The most important aspects of truth are abundantly simple to understand in scripture and are stated in hundreds of different ways to make it clear. There are mysteries of god that are explained but their truth is beyond human comprehension and thus men divide over it. For ex men have debated for centuries over who has primary role in salvation: man or god. Truth of scripture declares both but men choose to pick sides because they cannot comprehend the balance. But the critical truth that we need saving and that god saves us is clearly and simply stated.
-
I think the interesting part here is that, while the last 3 posters full-on proclaim that one can not ever understand God because we're measly humans, the similar conclusion about whether the Truth actually exists in the first place, is assumed to be without question.
rumborak
-
I think the interesting part here is that, while the last 3 posters full-on proclaim that one can not ever understand God because we're measly humans, the similar conclusion about whether the Truth actually exists in the first place, is assumed to be without question.
rumborak
There is a truth, rumborak. Whether that truth is there is a god or isn't one doesn't make the fact there is a truth any less true. We just don't know if our own personal truth is right or wrong. We will someday.
-
I think the interesting part here is that, while the last 3 posters full-on proclaim that one can not ever understand God because we're measly humans, the similar conclusion about whether the Truth actually exists in the first place, is assumed to be without question.
rumborak
There has to be some Truth, even if the only Truth is that there is no Truth. Something is, but I doubt it's anything even close to human comprehension, past or future. We can but understand part.
-
Something is
Well...yeah, I suppose so.
-
There has to be some Truth, even if the only Truth is that there is no Truth.
The problem I have with all this is that, it's like being Christopher Columbus, before he ever even went on the ship, drawing a detailed map of what he will see. I have no problem with saying "we don't know, and maybe we'll never know or understand", but most religions put the cart before the horse by saying what there is, and in the same breath proudly declaring that they have no clue whatsoever.
rumborak
-
also agree...I would only add that Scripture declares that it is "truth" and therefore (from that perspective) I can know where to find truth, though my understanding of it is what can be flawed.
Yeah. Even if you think Scripture is the Truth (which I don't, but I respect that), I would be highly skeptical of anyone who claimed to have a perfect understanding of it.
-
the word for a group like that is cult.
-
There has to be some Truth, even if the only Truth is that there is no Truth.
The problem I have with all this is that, it's like being Christopher Columbus, before he ever even went on the ship, drawing a detailed map of what he will see. I have no problem with saying "we don't know, and maybe we'll never know or understand", but most religions put the cart before the horse by saying what there is, and in the same breath proudly declaring that they have no clue whatsoever.
rumborak
I agree with that, guess I slightly misunderstood that post.