(August 13, 2021 at 2:41 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: One of the stranger aspects of christianity as we have it today is the split between the rank and file faithful and academics. What the one group is lead to believe compared to counterfactual elements which the other group knows and understands and has always been coming to terms with.
The latter group arrives at a position of faith which is at least concordant with reality. That even though there was vast disagreement and the process which lead to the current understanding was convoluted and murky - what made it out the other side was a fairly accurate representation of the set of true beliefs and a valuable message.
The former group, for their part, seems to be worried that acknowledging history somehow argues against the truth of their faith, or the value of the message. It's not clear why this would be the case. People disagreed about oxygen once, too, and mentioning that fact doesn't seem to have any effect on the fact of oxygens existence.
I'd even argue that for the miracle minded believers, the quagmire that The Real Truth somehow emerged from makes it even more magical.
Regarding the text I bolded - I understand pretty well why this is the case if we limit the question to evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. These people are taught to believe this in church, plain and simple. The message may differ from one church to another but it doesn't stray far, especially in churches like Baptists, who are very organized around a central core. People are taught to build a wall of faith and in that wall are bricks made of scriptures that must be taken literally and without question. Sometimes bricks are made up of opinions that don't even exist in scripture. Any time a small thread sticks out of the wall, they are told not to pull on it or the entire wall might fall down. That's why they are like this. There's just no room for doubt.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller