Misconceptions of Christian theology

[Neo-Scholastic]

Who needs truth when you can make $100,000?

Who says you cannot have both?

[jstrodel]

The connection is that you say "why learn about God or why learn about Christianity" and the answer is extremely obvious: because almost every society in history has took the concept of God seriously and Christianity is the most popular understanding. The rest was directed towards the pride of the scientism which says it has no place for religion and has a direct economic stake in studying science. Why go to theology for truth when you can learn how to make money and learn that you don't have to follow any rules at the same time?

I don't see how that has no discernible connection to your post. It is pure pride to ignore religion and the economic connection was to indicate the superficiality with which scientism is promoted as a sole means of understanding truth. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that your disdain for theological methods was due in a large measure because of your preference for science. There is nothing praiseworthy about ignoring theology and studying science or something similar to get a job and saying that you know based on a certain worldview that you can reject God. I call it greed.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Surely you don't mean an agnostic atheist needs to cultivate a competent theology in order to assess the validity of the Christian faith.

Initially, no. Eventually, yes.

Usually it begins with a recognition that whatever they are currently doing has stopped working for them, the "dark night of the soul." Then a process of self-reflection during which they identify deficiencies of the heart, a "the God shaped hole." Followed by repentance and an earnest desire to learn about spiritual things. Having identified a need that cannot be filled by earthly pursuits, people turn to various religions for guidance. It is only at this point that people start to cultivate knowledge about each faith tradition. Some become Christians. Others go elsewhere.

Very, very few people come to the Lord by intellectual effort alone and if they do it usually does not last. Faith must root itself in a deeper place. From there it informs the intellect. I think most agnostics sense this (maybe you, maybe not) because they instinctively recoil from atheism, whereas they have only a polite indifference to religion.

[Whateverist]

Surely you don't mean an agnostic atheist needs to cultivate a competent theology in order to assess the validity of the Christian faith.

Initially, no. Eventually, yes.

Usually it begins with a recognition that whatever they are currently doing has stopped working for them, the "dark night of the soul." Then a process of self-reflection during which they identify deficiencies of the heart, a "the God shaped hole." Followed by repentance and an earnest desire to learn about spiritual things. Having identified a need that cannot be filled by earthly pursuits, people turn to various religions for guidance. It is only at this point that people start to cultivate knowledge about each faith tradition.

That sounds like a story oft told but there are other stories and other meanings to find in life. My father, a Methodist, used to really piss me off when he used to begin a sentence with "You're going to find out that ..". It is of course arrogance to think one stands on the highest ground and can see where everyone else's path leads.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That sounds like a story oft told but there are other stories and other meanings to find in life.

No doubt. In the end, people of goodwill always find what they are looking for.

It is of course arrogance to think one stands on the highest ground and can see where everyone else's path leads.

True enough, though everyone lives in their own universe to some extent. I say preach the Gospel, sometimes use words.

[John V]

In a recent Pew Poll in the USA, it was shown that Athiests scored higher in understanding Scripture better than Believers. One pastor propsed that it is because they have to respond to believers, so they study harder. I would suggets it is because they DID study hard, they became non-blievers, and that learning showed.

Or you could read the poll results yourself, which say that the biggest predictor was general educational level. The Bible questions asked did not require hard study. They were:

1. Name the first book in the Bible.
2. Name the four gospels.
3. Where was Jesus born?
4. Which of the following is not in the Ten Commandments? (Answer: do unto others...)
5. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with remaining obedient to god despite suffering?
6. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with leading the exodus from Egypt?
7. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with willingness to sacrifice his son for God?

There were 32 questions in total - 12 on Christianity, 11 on other religions, and 9 general questions (who's the vice president? how does a laser work? who wrote Moby Dick?).

On the Christianity section, using the subgroups the survey used, the top groups were Mormons and white evangelical Christians. Atheists/agnostics were third. Props to Mormons, but again, the actual questions are underwhelming. A few of them are readily knowable through popular culture.

[Zen Badger]

The connection is that you say "why learn about God or why learn about Christianity" and the answer is extremely obvious: because almost every society in history has took the concept of God seriously and Christianity is the most popular understanding. The rest was directed towards the pride of the scientism which says it has no place for religion and has a direct economic stake in studying science. Why go to theology for truth when you can learn how to make money and learn that you don't have to follow any rules at the same time?

I don't see how that has no discernible connection to your post. It is pure pride to ignore religion and the economic connection was to indicate the superficiality with which scientism is promoted as a sole means of understanding truth. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that your disdain for theological methods was due in a large measure because of your preference for science. There is nothing praiseworthy about ignoring theology and studying science or something similar to get a job and saying that you know based on a certain worldview that you can reject God. I call it greed.

No, I reject god because of the complete lack of evidence(and your god in particular).

[ThomM]

Simply PROOF that the xtian "religions" are just another form of Cafeteria religions - make up your own - decide what you want to believe - and what you do not. The only problem is that it is all fiction.

AS far as the morals in common - they were identified long before the xtian faith existed
THE golded rule is in the Rig Veda - as well as in writings of Aristotle - Plato - and Socrates - among others - all long before the xtian diversion of the jewish fiction.

WHy do you need to believe in nonsense - in order to be a moral and ethical person - when billions manage it without belief in gods or churches.

The only function of a church would be to act a mediator between a god and you - and since NO go has ever been proven to exist - and no church has ever proven it actually has any such power - why pay for NOTHING?

[Esquilax]

There is nothing praiseworthy about ignoring theology and studying science or something similar to get a job and saying that you know based on a certain worldview that you can reject God. I call it greed.

We ignore theology because it has nothing to give us. Why bother with the in depth ramblings of an ancient desert cult? It'd be like studying Lord of the Rings and hoping to get a career out of that.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: without referring to the bible, prove to me that your god exists. Show us why we should take your great book of made up fairytales seriously. And this time, do it without rattling off every stupid stereotype about atheists you know of, huh?

[EGross]

In a recent Pew Poll in the USA, it was shown that Athiests scored higher in understanding Scripture better than Believers. One pastor propsed that it is because they have to respond to believers, so they study harder. I would suggets it is because they DID study hard, they became non-blievers, and that learning showed.

Or you could read the poll results yourself, which say that the biggest predictor was general educational level. The Bible questions asked did not require hard study. They were:

1. Name the first book in the Bible.
2. Name the four gospels.
3. Where was Jesus born?
4. Which of the following is not in the Ten Commandments? (Answer: do unto others...)
5. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with remaining obedient to god despite suffering?
6. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with leading the exodus from Egypt?
7. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with willingness to sacrifice his son for God?

There were 32 questions in total - 12 on Christianity, 11 on other religions, and 9 general questions (who's the vice president? how does a laser work? who wrote Moby Dick?).

On the Christianity section, using the subgroups the survey used, the top groups were Mormons and white evangelical Christians. Atheists/agnostics were third. Props to Mormons, but again, the actual questions are underwhelming. A few of them are readily knowable through popular culture.

Ah thanks for the clarification. But the news didn't break it down that way at first. Ah, well...

...so Christians don't know the name of the Vice President?

No big deal!