Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[lilithu]

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"

Well, I don't think the bible is a history book but I also don't think it's all BS. There are stories which from my pov clearly are not meant to be taken literally, and yet hold great truth and meaning.

Ironically, from my perspective, the biblical fundamentalist and the anti-Christian atheist have much in common with each other. They both approach the bible as if it's to be taken as a combination science/history book. The only difference is whether they agree with it.

 

[kai]

myself and my peers left school at 16 went to work in a factory,Construction or joined the Army,
i don't know how or why, and i cant really remember being told it was, but all of us believed the bible to be a true history ,

My family and friends all look at me if i am crazy if i state otherwise, and they take it literally too, and i must admit i never really knew what an allegory was till i came on here and then i had to look it up ,

I asked my best mate if he knew what an allegory was and he said it "was like hay fever". but ask him to name some kings of Israel and he can, Solomon ,David etc and the Israelites were slaves that built the pyramids all history.

i think people like Dawkins are trying to get to grips with this kind of thing, and believe me my family and friends are kind of typical.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

The problem is that it's impossible to criticize Christianity in any way without it being considered "bashing".

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.

A fan of Harry Potter would have at least read the books, and if they had just seen the movies, they would have to be specific and say that they had only seen the movies.

The other thing is that, if people were talking about the Bible in the same way, as stories that have some meaning, rather than an infallible historical account by God's own word, then most people wouldn't have a problem anyway.

The point is that, if the Bible is what many claim it to be, things like who wrote it and when become very important. If people take it as nothing more than a "Harry Potter" book, then the only thing that matters is that they've read it before they claim that they have knowledge of it.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

What would make you think that? On the contrary, as a Jew (and atheist) I was rather amazed to learn how soon after Christ's death his story was written down. As a result of this and other studies, I now accept that there probably was a preacher named Yeshua on whose actual life the Christ story is loosely based. This is a complete change from my prior understanding that the whole thing was a myth. In fact, I find the actual story not only fascinating, but rather supportive of the Christian version of events. I mean, the stuff was repeated orally among the people who did witness it, and written down within a couple of generations thereafter. Obviously it made a big impact on each generation of people. In fact, I think it's the most compelling evidence in favor of Christianity, and think it's really weird that instead the establishment has promulgated this set of lies that anyone can easily disprove, that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses.

Since I am not an expert in this field, and know zero ancient languages, in all areas of dispute I accept the currently accepted view of the majority. For example, I understand that the mainstream view is that there was such a Yeshua. Since I have no plans to pursue a doctorate in this field, I'll just accept that as the best current understanding about that. So, again as an example, I don't think any reputable scholars, Christian or not, think that the gospels are eye-witness accounts. Yet millions of Christians think they are. Someone is lying to them. I think that's wrong.

I don't dispute that there are a few Christians who know the Bible and its history, but they are a tiny, educated minority. The average Christian hasn't a clue. For some reason, the average American atheist does. I think atheists tend to be the kind of people who think that facts are important, and see the world through the lens of curiosity, people who think that factoids matter while Christians tend more to the faith/emotion/salvation end of things, that what matters is the relationship to their savior, not who told His story or when.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

What bashing? I'm just describing what I've seen.

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?

He needs, at a minimum, to have read them and know what they say, if he wants to hold forth with any authority on the subject.

And of course, Harry Potter is fiction, which is different--to Christians.

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.

Which of course, they don't, since no one can. But anyway, if they are asserting that the Bible should be relied on, shouldn't they have some clue who wrote it and when? It's not like Harry Potter, is it? We don't have people who really believe that there is a boy wizard and that it's important to learn his spells. If we did, we might ask how they know that, mightn't we?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

The statements I have made in this thread are factual as to my experience. Again, I think it's because of being raised as a Jew; it is puzzling to find people at once so passionate yet ignorant about their own history and books. OTOH, as a Jew, one can't help but be wary of Christians in general. You never know when they're going to get together and try to kill you and all your relatives.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Exactly. Yet we have millions of ignorant Christians who think that the Bible does prohibit abortions. And slavery. And lesbianism. And polygamy. But that divorce is O.K. This is all the opposite of what the Bible actually says. It's maddening as well as puzzling. They think they believe in what the Bible says, but how can they, if they don't know what it says? Again, I can't count how many times I've informed Christians that their Bible permits polygamy but prohibits divorce, the exact opposite of what they think it says. Shouldn't it make a difference what it actually says?

 

[Autodidact]

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"

Well I think large parts of are a history book, just not a very accurate one. I think the people of that time did their best to write down their history as they knew it, which was the oral history and myths passed down until then. So there's probably a kernel of truth in a lot of it. For example, the Israelites did fight a lot of wars. They didn't actually win them all, and got smitten as much as they smote, but they did fight wars and conquer some enemies.

 

[Yerda]

The statements I have made in this thread are factual as to my experience. Again, I think it's because of being raised as a Jew; it is puzzling to find people at once so passionate yet ignorant about their own history and books. OTOH, as a Jew, one can't help but be wary of Christians in general. You never know when they're going to get together and try to kill you and all your relatives.

That is some dark sarcasm.

Out of interest, would a Jewish person not be a Jew if they were ignorant of the Tanakh? Or didn't much care for the Talmud?

 

[Magic Man]

That is some dark sarcasm.

Out of interest, would a Jewish person not be a Jew if they were ignorant of the Tanakh? Or didn't much care for the Talmud?

I don't mean to answer for Auto, but I think "Jewish" is different from "Christian". Auto could still call herself a Jew, even though she's an atheist because "Jewish" is more than a religion, it's an ethnicity. When Hitler killed Jews, he didn't care what they believed in, just that they were of the Jewish ethnicity.

 

[Yerda]

I don't mean to answer for Auto, but I think "Jewish" is different from "Christian". Auto could still call herself a Jew, even though she's an atheist because "Jewish" is more than a religion, it's an ethnicity. When Hitler killed Jews, he didn't care what they believed in, just that they were of the Jewish ethnicity.

I know.

 

[Autodidact]

That is some dark sarcasm.

Out of interest, would a Jewish person not be a Jew if they were ignorant of the Tanakh? Or didn't much care for the Talmud?

Judaism is a tribe as well as a religion. A Jew can belong to the tribe of Jews without even knowing it.

A religious Jew would consider it important to be knowledgeable about Torah, Haftorah and if European, Talmud. If they weren't, I don't think anyone else would consider them religious.

And in general, unlike Christians, Jews aren't going around trying to persuade other people that this stuff is true and they should change their life based on it.

 

[Yerda]

Judaism is a tribe as well as a religion.

And this can't apply to people other than Jews?

 

[Magic Man]

And this can't apply to people other than Jews?

I would say not. That's why I said in my other post that that is where "Jewish" is different from "Christian". It might apply to some other people than Jews, but not to Christians.

 

[kai]

I don't mean to answer for Auto, but I think "Jewish" is different from "Christian". Auto could still call herself a Jew, even though she's an atheist because "Jewish" is more than a religion, it's an ethnicity. When Hitler killed Jews, he didn't care what they believed in, just that they were of the Jewish ethnicity.

i dont think we should take Hitlers view on who is a jew and who isnt ( how many times does this guy come up ) converts to Judaism are both included and have been absorbed within the Jewish people throughout the millennia. which pretty much means i could be a jew if i felt the need.with no "jewish" ancestry at all.

Jew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Yerda]

I would say not. That's why I said in my other post that that is where "Jewish" is different from "Christian". It might apply to some other people than Jews, but not to Christians.

You might want to look into the mingling of nationalism and religion in the Catholic Irish diaspora. Especially in Scotland. Catholicism (and even anti-Catholicism to a degree) became an tribal identity in it's own regard.

In general though, I agree. It was just a passing question. The thread specifies theists not just Christians.

 

[Magic Man]

You might want to look into the mingling of nationalism and religion in the Catholic Irish diaspora. Especially in Scotland. Catholicism (and even anti-Catholicism to a degree) became an tribal identity in it's own regard.

In general though, I agree. It was just a passing question. The thread specifies theists not just Christians.

Believe me, I know about that situation. Yes, situations like that can come up, but that erally has no bearing on the topic of the OP. Those people, along with Jews, are a completely different story than what the OP is talking about.

 

[Autodidact]

And this can't apply to people other than Jews?

I think it applies to some other religions--don't know as much about it. I think Sikhs are in this category? Someone else here might know better than I.

 

[Autodidact]

i dont think we should take Hitlers view on who is a jew and who isnt ( how many times does this guy come up ) converts to Judaism are both included and have been absorbed within the Jewish people throughout the millennia. which pretty much means i could be a jew if i felt the need.with no "jewish" ancestry at all.

Jew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right, converts are accepted into the tribe, like a person adopted into a tribe or naturalized as a citizen. But a Jew is always a Jew, no matter what they may come to believe in their lifetime.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

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

Yes, sure, but only certain parts of the NT are studied regularly. A lot is missed. But I agree, it's definitely a sad state of affairs when someone who claims to be a holy spirit filled Christian knows little about scripture.