Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[science_is_my_god]

I did NOT say that Christianity doesn't rest on the truth of the bible. The truth of the bible for most Christians is that God so love the world that He gave His Son so that whosoever believes will be saved. The truth of the bible is not being able to list the names of the twelve apostles or the prophets that went before. You show me a Christian who believes that salvation depends on knowing the names of the twelve apostles AND THEN you can laud it over them that you know more of these factoids than they do.

You know, maybe being "saved" is not such a good thing after all. A wise man once said that if Christ returned, there is one thing he would NOT be, and that is a Christian.

 

[Autodidact]

I did NOT say that Christianity doesn't rest on the truth of the bible. The truth of the bible for most Christians is that God so love the world that He gave His Son so that whosoever believes will be saved. The truth of the bible is not being able to list the names of the twelve apostles or the prophets that went before. You show me a Christian who believes that salvation depends on knowing the names of the twelve apostles AND THEN you can laud it over them that you know more of these factoids than they do.

Did I say anything about the apostles?
What I mean, for example, is who wrote it? Kind of important, don't you think, important fact about any book?

Most Christians I've talked to seem to be under the misapprehension that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, while scholars are pretty sure they were not, rather they were written by Anonymous et al. at least 50 years later. I find that important.

The first shred of a piece of manuscript we have is called P52. IIRC it dates from around 130 C.E. and is a fragment from the book of John. That's it! The holy grail, really. The first actual physical piece of the Bible. I've never met a Christian who's heard of it. It's locked away in a library somewhere. I tell you, if it were the original Torah, it would be the holiest relic in Judaism. Christians don't seem to know or care. Yet I've had them tell me on the net that the Bible is true to the original manuscript. What manuscript are they talking about? They have no idea that it looks like this:

That's it, Christians, your holiest, authentic relic. Ever seen this picture before? Why are you so ignorant of your own religious history? Why did I learn about this from atheists? Why is the truth a secret in Christianity?

Or Christians are constantly telling me that they're against homosexuality because they Bible says so. It's not at all clear what the Bible says about male homosexuality, but it clearly has no problem with lesbianism. Christians know it's not O.K., but have no idea why they think so.


Basically, what I've learned about the Bible I've learned mostly from atheists. (at IIDB, where I go no more.)Those guys knew their stuff. I've never met a Christian who knows the actual history of the actual Bible. I wonder why.

 

[Autodidact]

I did NOT say that Christianity doesn't rest on the truth of the bible. The truth of the bible for most Christians is that God so love the world that He gave His Son so that whosoever believes will be saved...

Well gosh, we can't grow up in the U.S.A. and not know that. You can hardly call that Biblical knowledge. Don't you think it's important to know who Jesus' dad (you know, God, who is also Jesus) is? What He expects of us? What He commands us? His nature? There's a whole book--well, series of books about Him. Don't you think that people who claim to worship Him should read them? I'm just sayin'.

 

[science_is_my_god]

Basically, what I've learned about the Bible I've learned mostly from atheists. (at IIDB, where I go no more.)Those guys knew their stuff. I've never met a Christian who knows the actual history of the actual Bible. I wonder why.

I'll tell you why. Because an atheist uses logic and reasoning to dismiss claims, and therefor needs evidence. A Christian just says "That part of the Bible we don't take litterally."

 

[lilithu]

Don't you think that people who claim to worship Him should read them? I'm just sayin'.

I think it's up to Christians to decide what it is that Christians should do. Radical concept, I know. :sarcastic

 

[lilithu]

I've never met a Christian who knows the actual history of the actual Bible. I wonder why.

Yeah, I wonder why you haven't too. Because I sure have.

 

[Autodidact]

lilithu, I cannot frubal you, so I'll just say in the thread that you are consistently one of the strongest opponents I've ever argued against regarding religion.

 

[Autodidact]

Yeah, I wonder why you haven't too. Because I sure have.

Tell the truth, you knew about P52? You knew the oldest shred of manuscript we have dates from more than 100 years after Jesus' death? You know about the Wycliffe Bible? The Codex Alexandrius and the Codex Sinaiticus?

 

[gnostic]

Is this "Jesus Camp", an American thing?

I've not heard of it before. And I don't think there is one in Australia....well, at least to my knowledge, that is.

On 2nd thought, I've heard of kids from Christian schools going to camp, but that's just camping trips, isn't it? Are they the same things as this "Jesus Camp"?

Are there these camps set up in Canada and the UK?

 

[Autodidact]

I think it's up to Christians to decide what it is that Christians should do. Radical concept, I know. :sarcastic

Well, are you one? What's your opinion?

In general, I don't think that people who are ignorant about something should claim knowledge and even authority regarding that subject, including the Bible, which Christians are famous for citing.

 

[lilithu]

Tell the truth, you knew about P52? You knew the oldest shred of manuscript we have dates from more than 100 years after Jesus' death? You know about the Wycliffe Bible? The Codex Alexandrius and the Codex Sinaiticus?

I didn't say that I know all of that stuff. I said that I've met Christians who know all that stuff. They write books that I read and give lectures that I attend. That was in direct response you claiming that you've never met any Christians who know the history of the bible.

I do know enough to know that much of biblical history is debated, and I highly suspect that the versions of biblical history that interest you most are the ones that put Christianity in the least believable light.

 

[lilithu]

Is this "Jesus Camp", an American thing?

I've not heard of it before. And I don't think there is one in Australia....well, at least to my knowledge, that is.

On 2nd thought, I've heard of kids from Christian schools going to camp, but that's just camping trips, isn't it? Are they the same things as this "Jesus Camp"?

Are there these camps set up in Canada and the UK?

"Jesus Camp" refers to a documentary that came out a year or two ago about these Christian summer camps. My guess is that the ones in Canada and the UK are not like the ones in the U.S. My guess is that by comparison the ones in the U.S. are more... "emotional."

 

[lilithu]

Well, are you one? What's your opinion?

Am I one what? A Christian? It says right on my profile what I am, a Unitarian Universalist. No, I am not Christian. I am just sick of people bashing Christians. And please don't try to justify it by listing all the terrible things that have been done in the name of Christianity or some horrible experience you had with some intolerant Christian. Two wrongs do not make a right, and whatever negative experience you've had does not give you the right to generalize across all Christians.

In general, I don't think that people who are ignorant about something should claim knowledge and even authority regarding that subject, including the Bible, which Christians are famous for citing.

Your argument holds no merit. Does a fan of the Harry Potter series of books need to know how the books came about in order to be able to talk about some part of the plotline? Does he need to be able to name the author and the publication dates in order to be able to debate the relative merits of Snape or the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore?

Christians can cite the bible without knowing the estimated dates of certain pieces of parchment. The only thing that's fair to hold them accountable on is the internal consistency with which they follow the text.

 

[Smoke]

You know, maybe being "saved" is not such a good thing after all. A wise man once said that if Christ returned, there is one thing he would NOT be, and that is a Christian.

I wouldn't care to speculate about that, but he certainly wasn't a Christian when he was here before.

 

[lilithu]

lilithu, I cannot frubal you, so I'll just say in the thread that you are consistently one of the strongest opponents I've ever argued against regarding religion.

Autodidact, I quite respect that you can debate someone with a differing point of view while still maintaining a degree of detachment and objectivity. Otoh, I find this puzzling because your generalizations about Christians seem to me anything but detached and objective.

Oh well, frubals to you.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

In Dawkin's "The God Delusion", he quotes some statistics in studies about Christians in the U.S. as follows:

1. 75 percent of them could not name 1 old testament prophet.
2. 50 percent of them did not know who gave the Sermon on the Mount.
3. > 50 percent of them thought Moses was one of the disciples of Christ.

And this is in a religious country like the U.S. What conclusions can be drawn from such a woeful lack of knowledge about people's own religion?

Wow, you must have some truly clueless Christians over there!

But I'd say it's probably not that surprising. The amount of scripture preached on in churches and studied at homes is only a small portion of the bible. The stuff that leaders think is most important to study. ie. Mainly New Testament.

 

[kai]

Am I one what? A Christian? It says right on my profile what I am, a Unitarian Universalist. No, I am not Christian. I am just sick of people bashing Christians. And please don't try to justify it by listing all the terrible things that have been done in the name of Christianity or some horrible experience you had with some intolerant Christian. Two wrongs do not make a right, and whatever negative experience you've had does not give you the right to generalize across all Christians.

Your argument holds no merit. Does a fan of the Harry Potter series of books need to know how the books came about in order to be able to talk about some part of the plotline? Does he need to be able to name the author and the publication dates in order to be able to debate the relative merits of Snape or the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore?

Christians can cite the bible without knowing the estimated dates of certain pieces of parchment. The only thing that's fair to hold them accountable on is the internal consistency with which they follow the text.

i would expect them to know at least a little , if they were expecting me to believe that the story was actually true.

 

[lilithu]

i would expect hem to know at least a little , if they were expecting me to beleive that the story was actually true.

Know at least a little what? About the story or about the history of the bible?

I would agree that if someone is claiming that the bible is the inerrant word of God and literally true - that is, if they're reading the bible like a history/science text - then yes, you bringing up that the earliest dating of a recorded gospel isn't until several decades after Jesus' death is relevant.

But if the person isn't making that claim, if they're just saying that they believe in the bible and the bible says that you can't have abortions, then imo criticizing the person for not knowing the history of the bible, or not knowing the difference between Esau and Jacob is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what the bible actually says. And besides, you can easily refute the claim that the bible prohibits abortion by citing the bible.

 

[lilithu]

Wow, you must have some truly clueless Christians over there!

But I'd say it's probably not that surprising. The amount of scripture preached on in churches and studied at homes is only a small portion of the bible. The stuff that leaders think is most important to study. ie. Mainly New Testament.

But two out of three of the questions they got wrong have to do with the New Testament.

 

[kai]

Know at least a little what? About the story or about the history of the bible? Both

I would agree that if someone is claiming that the bible is the inerrant word of God and literally true - that is, if they're reading the bible like a history/science text - then yes, you bringing up that the earliest dating of a recorded gospel isn't until several decades after Jesus' death is relevant.some people think it is a historical document they beleive without question things like Solomon and David were kings of Israel.

But if the person isn't making that claim, if they're just saying that they believe in the bible and the bible says that you can't have abortions, then imo criticizing the person for not knowing the history of the bible, or not knowing the difference between Esau and Jacob is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what the bible actually says. And besides, you can easily refute the claim that the bible prohibits abortion by citing the bible.

I agree , the main thing that bugs me though , is how people think its a history book , when someone argues from a biblical standpoint not many ordinary people know they are talking BS, but think "well they must be right its in the bible"