7th April 2012

“Most atheists are more knowledgeable about the bible than those people that casually label themselves as 'Christians'. This is because atheists are questioners rather than blind followers of faith.”


6 Responses to “7th April 2012”

  1. Capt'Z Says:

    I’ve found this to be true. See for yourself. Spend some time questioning missionaries.

  2. Jeff Says:

    What I find fascinating is the search for God among the clergy. Do you know that there is an entire web site dedicated to those pastors who have secretly become atheists? A couple of weeks back, a Texas Protestant minister (I think either Lutheran or Episcopalian), went on MSNBC’s UP w/Chris Hayes and “came out” as an atheist. He was going to face his church board the next week, and I have no idea how that came out, but I admit to my suspicions that it didn’t end well for the gentleman (and I use that word in it’s oldest sense).

    I can’t find the quote, but it is something to the effect that a parishioner is a person who knows god, but a priest is a man constantly in search of Him. In my experience with ministers who are members of my family it is true. The more educated they are, the harder the search becomes, and I do have a lot of respect for those who do so honestly, even when they don’t share the conclusions to which I’ve come. It’s the followers that need more education.

  3. R J Says:

    this is the same old crap about ” practical ‘

    VS. ” interpretive ” conclusions. bible-schmible !

    in this old argument all that’s really left to EITHER

    side are assumptions……………..that is, assumptions

    you’re willing to accept as part of reality .

  4. Xhim Says:

    Jeff, it’s true that much of “theological education” leads to conclusions that undermine faith. But don’t automatically equate that with education, even theological education in general. It is precisely this widespread unwillingness to question authority often referred to in these discussions that allows theological students to blindly swallow that stuff, and then wonder what happened to what they learned in Sunday School. My own experience was to arrive at college (a church related college at that) as a ruddy faced freshmen, and be amazed at the “learned dissertation” I was confronted with. There was no one, neither student nor professor, that could advise me, and my Sunday School teachers would have been way out of their league. But my experience of Jesus already at that point, subjective as it was, convinced me there must be answers to the things I was being taught in class – specifically OT and NT surveys. So I went looking for them. And I discovered that there is a whole alternative scholarship out there that some institutions of higher learning completely ignore. For example, historically so-called “higher criticism” or “source criticism” rests on Julius Wellhausen’s theory that use of “Elohim” and “Jahweh” to refer to God reflects two different sources of the Biblical narrative that were edited into one during the time of Solomon. This is still unquestioned dogma in many seminaries. What I had to find out on my own was that already in 1949 a Jewish scholar produced a short book demonstrating that this entire theory rests on a poor understanding of Hebrew. He demonstrated that every use of “Elohim” refers to the Almighty God of Creation, whereas every use of “Jahweh” is in the context of the personal loving Father-God. Over sixty years later this bit of research, and much more that I could mention, is still consistently ignored by those who have a vested interest in undermining the authority of the Bible.
    Granted, all of the above belongs to the category of “internal squabbling,” and is thus probably not very interesting to you in terms of content. I mention it just to show that it is not a distinction between the educated and the uneducated, but of different streams of scholarship. Which, if you step across the line into my world for a minute, makes sense: if you were a supernatural diabolical being trying to seduce the world into turning its back on God, wouldn’t you try to infiltrate the Church and take over its educational system?

  5. electra Says:

    If you were trying to write a convincing moral narrative about God and what he expects of people, wouldn’t you make it internally consistent?

  6. reetBob Says:

    Putting it another way:
    If you were an omnipotent being speaking to his followers through the written word, wouldn’t you try to be consistent?