criticizing Christianity

[Pah]

Oh for goodness sake, this is really making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If a non-Christian (if anyone!) reads the Bible and takes the time to understand Christian tradition then their views will have just as much validity as anyone else's.

And of course it is possible and reasonable to have valid criticisms of Christianity after studying the Bible and Christian tradition. and if you want to criticize Roman Catholcism you need to understand RC tradition, not LDS, Anglican, or Baptist tradition and theology.

Tradition is a very poor indication of truth. Understanding someone's tradition does nothing to further truth. If the truth is not in the bible, tradition will not put it there. In fact, tradition sometimes appears without a biblical basis.

 

[Comprehend]

Read it all you want, you still won't understand my personal faith. If you'd prefer a "book study", fine.... but I don't believe a non-Christian can read the Bible and get anything but confused.

It is meant to be read and understood in the same Spirit by which it was written--- in other words, if you don't believe, you won't "get it".

I just noticed this and thought it was an amazing statement. If one believes that a non-christian can only become confused by reading the bible and that you must already be a christian to understand it then how can anyone ever become a christian? You would have to hold the position that the bible does not bring non-christians to God but rather that it pushes them away by confusing them. How does this make any sense? Surely there are thousands and thousands of christians who were converted by reading the bible, no?

did I misunderstand something Scott?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I just noticed this and thought it was an amazing statement. If one believes that a non-christian can only become confused by reading the bible and that you must already be a christian to understand it then how can anyone ever become a christian? You would have to hold the position that the bible does not bring non-christians to God but rather that it pushes them away by confusing them. How does this make any sense? Surely there are thousands and thousands of christians who were converted by reading the bible, no?

did I misunderstand something Scott?

I imagine a Catholic would argue that the individual can be brought to God through his own heart's crying out, then his knowledge begins through the instruction of Holy Mother Church, and then the Bible, once the individual commits to studying it, begins to make more sense. I could be totally wrong though.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You would have to hold the position that the bible does not bring non-christians to God but rather that it pushes them away by confusing them. How does this make any sense? Surely there are thousands and thousands of christians who were converted by reading the bible, no?

Not enough emphasis is placed on the role of the Spirit. The Spirit leads us into understanding, not a church or a man or even a book. The Spirit will convict us of who Jesus is, even if we don't have scriptures to read. The Spirit of God is powerful.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

The Spirit will convict us of who Jesus is, even if we don't have scriptures to read.

I wish that was true in my experience; my life would be a lot easier.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I wish that was true in my experience; my life would be a lot easier.

That is a common misconception.

 

[Ðanisty]

That is a common misconception.

How can you say that? You don't even know what he's referring to. You don't know why he feels things are complicated right now.

 

[lunamoth]

Tradition is a very poor indication of truth. Understanding someone's tradition does nothing to further truth. If the truth is not in the bible, tradition will not put it there. In fact, tradition sometimes appears without a biblical basis.

We're not discussing 'truth.' We're discussing criticizing Christianity. Tradition has everything to do with understanding Christianity. The Trinity for example is the heart of Christianity for the vast majority of Christians but I would bet my bottom dollar that if you gave the Bible, any version you want, to a person who truely has no previous exposure to Christianity that they would never come up with the doctrine of the Trinity on their own. Does that mean the Trinity is not Biblically based? No. But it is a product of community in combination with the Bible. The Bible itself is written tradition, the product of community.

Do you have to BE a Christian or have faith in God to understand Christianity? No. Can you read the Bible and come to your own truth and understanding that has nothing at all to do with Christianity's doctrines? Sure, go for it. But, can you understand Christianity only from your independent and uninformed reading of the Bible? Nope.

 

[arielmessenger]

I had never really read the Bible before my religious conversion experience at age 35. Yes, I was exposed to the Bible in very brief episodes by my missionary aunt when she came to visit infrequently and dragged her nephews off to church. But these were mere days, probably less than 30 added together, and both my parents were not into religious worship at the time so the Bible was new to me when I was directed to read it during my religious experience to confirm the spiritual insights God had placed in my mind regarding the role of Jesus in human behavioral change.

Without the Spirit guiding me, I would never have become a believer in God and the spiritual world underlying the material one we deal with. The so-called holy books are more of a danger than a blessing to reach the kind of God-consciousness that binds one to peace and love of humanity and life itself.

 

[Comprehend]

Not enough emphasis is placed on the role of the Spirit. The Spirit leads us into understanding, not a church or a man or even a book. The Spirit will convict us of who Jesus is, even if we don't have scriptures to read. The Spirit of God is powerful.

I definitely agree. but wouldn't the spirit lead one who did not believe but wanted to find out by reading the bible? surely the spirit would not confuse an investigator.

 

[Comprehend]

I imagine a Catholic would argue that the individual can be brought to God through his own heart's crying out, then his knowledge begins through the instruction of Holy Mother Church, and then the Bible, once the individual commits to studying it, begins to make more sense. I could be totally wrong though.

Ok. I can see that as a Catholic teaching (is Scott catholic?). but what about Protestants? Wasn't a major point of the protestant movement that one my know God personally and did not need to go through the church?

 

[Comprehend]

I had never really read the Bible before my religious conversion experience at age 35. Yes, I was exposed to the Bible in very brief episodes by my missionary aunt when she came to visit infrequently and dragged her nephews off to church. But these were mere days, probably less than 30 added together, and both my parents were not into religious worship at the time so the Bible was new to me when I was directed to read it during my religious experience to confirm the spiritual insights God had placed in my mind regarding the role of Jesus in human behavioral change.

Without the Spirit guiding me, I would never have become a believer in God and the spiritual world underlying the material one we deal with. The so-called holy books are more of a danger than a blessing to reach the kind of God-consciousness that binds one to peace and love of humanity and life itself.

I guess it is a lot easier to *read* a bible without words in it eh stephen? I don't get it.

 

[arielmessenger]

God has given me two new "Word of God"s and neither one has any words in it. The Rainbow Bible and Paxcalibur. And neither one will ever be a source human beings use for acts of violence against their neighbors in the name of God.

"Everything people make into weapons against peace must be sacrificed. Truth cannot be sacrificed."

That's the new message God wants us to receive. The words in the so-called holy books have caused millions of unnecessary deaths. What greater reason than that to chuck them out as divine authorities? Only the Golden Rules found within each religious set of words should be paid attention to-everything else is subject to political interpretation masked as religious commitment.

 

[Pah]

We're not discussing 'truth.' We're discussing criticizing Christianity. Tradition has everything to do with understanding Christianity. The Trinity for example is the heart of Christianity for the vast majority of Christians but I would bet my bottom dollar that if you gave the Bible, any version you want, to a person who truely has no previous exposure to Christianity that they would never come up with the doctrine of the Trinity on their own. Does that mean the Trinity is not Biblically based? No. But it is a product of community in combination with the Bible. The Bible itself is written tradition, the product of community.

Most certainly Christianity is concerned with truth. If Christianity is not true, exactly what is the purpose of are all those traditions. The spiritual tradition must be true before it can be a basis of a way to live. Spiritual tradition can not be false without calling Christianity false. So, "truth" is indeed an intergal part of Christianity.

Tradition encompasses the form of worship, the missionary role, the physical plant for worship. I need to understand these in all thier variations before I understand Christianity? No sir. They can be better considered as triva to the core of Christianity.

Understanding Christianity entrails the understanding of its suppositions well before you can understand the details. The first supposition is that God exists. The second, that God put forth his word in the bible. The third is that Christ is God's son for sacriface and example. A forth is that the spirit is God's messanger and enabler. Those are sufficient to understand Christianity. Anything or most anything beyond that is detail that provides the flavor of Christianity. Would you have me taste all ice cream flavors to understand ice cream? and also sherbet and glaces?

I'll agree with you that the bible is written tradition but that the tradition is a form of "inspiration" of God and not the community. How can man's work be classified as God's word? But I will agree with you also that it is , in reality, a work of man.

Do you have to BE a Christian or have faith in God to understand Christianity? No. Can you read the Bible and come to your own truth and understanding that has nothing at all to do with Christianity's doctrines? Sure, go for it. But, can you understand Christianity only from your independent and uninformed reading of the Bible? Nope.

I see that (the nope) as a main problem of the documented source of Christianity.

 

[lunamoth]

Most certainly Christianity is concerned with truth.

Sure, but that's not the topic at hand. The topic is: Is it necessary to have actually read the bible before one can criticize Christianity?

My answer to that question is 'yes, but reading the Bible alone is not sufficient,' at least not if you want to give an informed or useful criticism.

If Christianity is not true, exactly what is the purpose of are all those traditions. The spiritual tradition must be true before it can be a basis of a way to live. Spiritual tradition can not be false without calling Christianity false. So, "truth" is indeed an intergal part of Christianity.

Sure, but again it's not the topic I'm addressing, nor is it the point of the OP.

Tradition encompasses the form of worship, the missionary role, the physical plant for worship.

And much much more.

I need to understand these in all thier variations before I understand Christianity? No sir. They can be better considered as triva to the core of Christianity.

No, you don't need to understand every bit of it. But there are some pretty main things that are part of Tradition, such as Jesus being God Incranate, the Trinity, the Sacraments, that are central to the vast majority of Christians, even if they differ in the details. If you want to criticize Christianity you will be criticizing these traditions which while Biblically based are not dictated in detail in the witness of the Evangelists or Epistles. That's why there are so many different flavors of Christianity, and why a religion like Baha'i can interpret the Bible in a way that is 1) consistent with the letter of the Bible but 2) not Christianity.

Understanding Christianity entrails the understanding of its suppositions well before you can understand the details. The first supposition is that God exists. The second, that God put forth his word in the bible. The third is that Christ is God's son for sacriface and example. A forth is that the spirit is God's messanger and enabler. Those are sufficient to understand Christianity.

Yes, and these are all part of tradition. Although many Sola Scriptura Christians believe that these doctrines are self-evident in the Bible, the fact is that these are doctrines of the early orthodox Church which were adopted by the Protestants. The are part of Tradition. (added in edit: lol, actually you are right about the first supposition. I'm pretty sure you get the idea that God exists just from reading the Bible!)

Anything or most anything beyond that is detail that provides the flavor of Christianity. Would you have me taste all ice cream flavors to understand ice cream? and also sherbet and glaces?

No, I don't think so. You can get the general gist of ice cream and criticize it, although you can't criticize all of Christianity if all you are familiar with is say the Jehova's Witnesses, and you can't criticize LDS if all you know if Baptist. You get the idea.

I'll agree with you that the bible is written tradition but that the tradition is a form of "inspiration" of God and not the community. How can man's work be classified as God's word? But I will agree with you also that it is , in reality, a work of man.

My belief about this is that it is a witness of the community and thus it is inspired by experience of God with us. I also view it as a sacred Word in that it offers us a thin place in which we can experience God ourselves.

I see that (the nope) as a main problem of the documented source of Christianity.

Guess we'll have to disagree then. But I still say I would bet my last dollar that if you were ever able to find a person who had never previously read the Bible or heard of Christianty before, they would not be able to describe Christianity based just upon their reading of the Bible.

 

[Scott1]

I guess that would mean it would not be good for missionary work. So how does one "get it"? Does faith come first and then you pursue the bible? Is it the words of the missionary that gives faith before he or she gives a copy to the one to be convinced?

Sounds about right to me... otherwise Christian missionaries should do a plane drop over Islamic countries.... drop a few million copies and wait for the mass conversions.... hehe... it don't work that way in my opinion.

Faith comes first.

 

[Scott1]

I imagine a Catholic would argue that the individual can be brought to God through his own heart's crying out, then his knowledge begins through the instruction of Holy Mother Church, and then the Bible, once the individual commits to studying it, begins to make more sense. I could be totally wrong though.

Nope... I'm not Catholic... but I agree with what you've said.

 

[Comprehend]

Sounds about right to me... otherwise Christian missionaries should do a plane drop over Islamic countries.... drop a few million copies and wait for the mass conversions.... hehe... it don't work that way in my opinion.

Faith comes first.

But where would the faith come from? You are saying that it must come from another person or just come spontaniously from the spirit? I still do not get why reading the bible cannot lead a non-christian to anything but confusion. Isn't that God's best tool? I thought that was the Word? I really am amazed, do others believe this as well?

How can one believe that God only left us one record, called the Bible and at the same time believe that the Bible would only confuse non-believers?

Would a non-christian stranded on a island with a bible be out of luck?

 

[Scuba Pete]

You must first SEEK the truth before you can find it.

If you read any book, or participate in any endeavor looking for the truth, it will present itself. You may ignore it, or choose another path, but the truth will be there for you to find.

 

[Scott1]

You must first SEEK the truth before you can find it.

Amen my friend.

The grace of faith opens "the eyes of your hearts" to a lively understanding of the contents of Revelation: that is, of the totality of God's plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ, the center of the revealed mystery. "The same Holy Spirit constantly perfects faith by his gifts, so that Revelation may be more and more profoundly understood." In the words of St. Augustine, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."