Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[lilithu]

The thread specifies theists not just Christians.

The thread title specifies theists but the OP refers specifically to Christians. Clearly the OPer doesn't bother to make the distinction. :sarcastic

 

[lilithu]

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.

Hinduism is similar, except in Hinduism you're born not just into the religion but also your caste. Conversion into Hinduism is difficult for that reason, and most non-Indian converts are things like the Hari Krishna or some other "modernized" version of Hinduism.

Also, any of the Indigenous traditions, like those of the Native Americans and the Maori, and from West Africa, etc. You are born into those too. Your tribe has your gods. Other tribes have other gods. And there is no distinction made between the religion and the people.

Basically, it's only in the proselytizing faiths like Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, where people often choose to become this new thing, that the tie between religion and cultural identity is significantly lessened, but still not eliminated.

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.

Not true. In other parts of the world, where religion isn't as fluid as in the U.S., Christianity functions like an ethnicity similar to Judaism. As I said in a previous post, Djamila can tell whether someone in Bosnia is Christian or Muslim based only on their last name. It is inherited. It is "tribal."

Even in the U.S., I know many, many people who consider themselves Christian even tho they don't go to church and don't believe most of the stuff of their respective traditions. But if you were to suggest to them that they were actually "closet atheists" who only identify as Christian because of social pressure, they would say no. They identify as Christian because that is part of their identity.

 

[lilithu]

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

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you were bashing, but I can see how it came off that way. I am sick of people bashing Christianity in general. I think that you (and this is obviously just my opinion) make some negative comments about Christians that are unwarranted, but you're clearly someone with whom one can have a rational conversation.

Which of course, they don't, since no one can.

Well, no one can be entirely consistent with all of the text, I agree. But a person can certainly be held accountable to being consistent about the parts they claim to pay attention to. So if they cite Leviticus, for example, in order to justify a certain stance, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect them to follow all the other proscriptions in the same text as well.

But anyway, if they are asserting that the Bible should be relied on, shouldn't they have some clue who wrote it and when?

Why? If someone cited their native myths as something they rely on, would you insist that they must know who wrote the stories and when?

 

[lilithu]

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

I have criticized Christianity. There are Christian theologians who have criticized Christianity. One of my favorite quotes from Gandhi is an scathing indictment against Christianity.

There is a big difference between comparing Christianity to a virus or a loaded weapon and pointing out things like how few Christians actually follow the teachings of Christ, or how dangerous it is to base one's theology on an after-life at the expense of this life.

Certain people keep saying that the criticisms against Dawkins are levied against him personally instead of his ideas. Ironically (or not) that's how I feel about his criticisms of Christianity. The OP starts with (paraphrasing) "look at how stupid these Christians are; they don't even know the difference between Moses and Peter." That is NOT a criticism against Christianity. It's an attack against Christians.

 

[Autodidact]

Why? If someone cited their native myths as something they rely on, would you insist that they must know who wrote the stories and when?

I certainly would if they were recommending that I rely on them.

btw, do you think that's maybe why we call them myths? And why Christians consider them to be primitive superstitions, completely different from their religion, which differs from these pagans in being True?

 

[lilithu]

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?

Yes, but only if the Christian him or herself is claiming that it makes a difference.

I think we're conflating several levels/issues here: You've talked about how Christians should know how their bible was "written" (it was actually redacted). And you've talked about how Christians should know what's actually in the bible. Those are two different things.

My position is this:

If there's a Christian who believes that Jesus is Lord and tries to be like Jesus and tries to do good, I see no reason to say that he or she is not a "good" Christian because she or he thinks Moses was one of the 12 apostles. And I certainly see no basis upon which to say that he or she is not a good Christian because she or he doesn't know that the gospels weren't recorded until decades after Jesus' death.

OTOH,

If there's a Christian who is out preaching that abortion is a sin (moral issue), then I think it perfectly legitimate to point out that the bible carries no such injunction and that he or she ought to be more familiar with the text from which she or he is moralizing.

And if there's a Christian who is out preaching that the world was created in six days because the bible says so (science issue), then I think it perfectly legitimate to point out the history of the bible, its multiple authors, redactions, problems with translations, etc.

 

[lilithu]

I certainly would if they were recommending that I rely on them.

btw, do you think that's maybe why we call them myths? And why Christians consider them to be primitive superstitions, completely different from their religion, which differs from these pagans in being True?

The word "myth" does NOT mean "primitive superstition" to me.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Yes, but only if the Christian him or herself is claiming that it makes a difference.

I think we're conflating several levels/issues here: You've talked about how Christians should know how their bible was "written" (it was actually redacted). And you've talked about how Christians should know what's actually in the bible. Those are two different things.

My position is this:

If there's a Christian who believes that Jesus is Lord and tries to be like Jesus and tries to do good, I see no reason to say that he or she is not a "good" Christian because she or he thinks Moses was one of the 12 apostles. And I certainly see no basis upon which to say that he or she is not a good Christian because she or he doesn't know that the gospels weren't recorded until decades after Jesus' death.

Wouldn't it help to have some sort of academic understanding of what the book says Jesus was like if a person claims to "be like Jesus"?

 

[lilithu]

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.

I stand corrected.

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.

While I take issue with the characterization that atheists are curious while Christians are not, I do agree, as I said in the beginning, that Christianity is ultimately a "heart" religion. Who told the story when is not important. What is important is the relationship with Christ.

And lest anyone disdain this, keep in mind that this is likely why Christianity has been as successful as it has. It is egalitarian. Salvation isn't based on book learning, which traditionally was available only to a select few. Salvation was open to anyone who accepted Christ. While we today generally see that requirement as divisive and exclusivist, in its own way it is a great equalizer.

 

[lilithu]

Wouldn't it help to have some sort of academic understanding of what the book says Jesus was like if a person claims to "be like Jesus"?

Why does one need an academic understanding?

 

[blackout]

If someone cited their native myths as something they rely on, would you insist that they must know who wrote the stories and when?

Understood as myth, I think it wouldn't matter.
Treated as historical fact, it kind of begs historical backing.

 

[lilithu]

Understood as myth, I think it wouldn't matter.
Treated as historical fact, it kind of begs historical backing.

Agreed. :yes:

 

[science_is_my_god]

Why does one need an academic understanding?

Why wouldn't you?

 

[lilithu]

Why wouldn't you?

If you are making the claim that there is a need, then it's up to you to back up your claim. Even a guy who "worships" science should be capable of understanding this.

 

[science_is_my_god]

If you are making the claim that there is a need, then it's up to you to back up your claim. Even a guy who "worships" science should be capable of understanding this.

You never answered my question, and no, I don't worship anything. This thread is called "Surprising lack of knowledge among theists," not "surprising lack of worship among theists."

 

[lilithu]

You never answered my question,

Must we play this game? Fine. I asked first. You never answered my question, so there.

and no, I don't worship anything.

I see, you don't worship your god.

 

[science_is_my_god]

Must we play this game? Fine. I asked first. You never answered my question, so there.I see, you don't worship your god.

I don't play games. And to answer your question, I NEVER made the claim that there IS a need for academic understanding, I merely asked why there wouldn't be a need to have it. And guess what, I never said I worship my "god" I merely imply that science has a godlike quality. That doesn't mean I have to worship it.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Why does one need an academic understanding?

You don't buy a car without test driving it. You don't buy milk without checking the date. You don't sign anything without reading it. You don't model your entire life after a person who lived 2000 years ago if you don't know a thing about his life.

Just saying "be good" is worthless. What is good? According to who? A dog trained to attack people might be called by his owner a good dog.

If a person reads something, they might learn something. Nothing is wrong with that.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You don't buy a car without test driving it.

I have done this twice.

You don't buy milk without checking the date.

I RARELY check the date.

You don't sign anything without reading it.

Way more than I would like to admit.

You don't model your entire life after a person who lived 2000 years ago if you don't know a thing about his life.

Actually, you need to know more about the life of the person who claims to follow Jesus. How has it affected them? How many times have YOU been turned off by an alleged follower of Jesus? I do believe that I am the Bible that most people I come in contact will actually read. My life either honors God or not.

If a person reads something, they might learn something. Nothing is wrong with that.

The point is not that you SHOULDN'T read about Christianity, it's that you DON'T HAVE TO. God will reveal himself to you in any way HE sees fit.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I have done this twice. I RARELY check the date. Way more than I would like to admit. Actually, you need to know more about the life of the person who claims to follow Jesus. How has it affected them? How many times have YOU been turned off by an alleged follower of Jesus? I do believe that I am the Bible that most people I come in contact will actually read. My life either honors God or not. The point is not that you SHOULDN'T read about Christianity, it's that you DON'T HAVE TO. God will reveal himself to you in any way HE sees fit.

I see a conversation looking like this...

Person A: How do you live your life?
Person B: I try to live my life like Jesus
A: Who was Jesus?
B: I dunno.
A: What did Jesus do?
B: I dunno.
A: What was Jesus' purpose in life?
B: For me to be like him.
A: Ok... so what was he like?
B: I dunno.


See a pattern?