# Lastly



## Diogenes (Sep 30, 2010)

Quoted entirely from the Tribune Newspapers service:

“If you want to learn about God, you might want to talk to an atheist.  

A survey measuring Americans’ knowledge of religion found that atheists and agnostics knew more, on average, than followers of most major faiths.

A majority of Protestants couldn’t identify Martin Luther as the driving force behind the Protestant Reformation, according to the survey, released Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.  Four in 10 Catholics misunderstood the meaning of their church’s central ritual, incorrectly saying that the bread and wine used in Holy Communion are intended to merely symbolize the body and blood of Christ, not actually become them.

Atheists and agnostics were more likely to answer the survey’s questions correctly.  Jews and Mormons ranked just below them in the survey’s measurement of religious knowledge – so close as to be statistically tied (with each other).  

American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director of the Pew Forum.”

Gosh.  How surprising.  Could have knocked me over with a feather.

Religious people know less about religion than non-religious people?  That seems pretty obvious to me, but at least someone independent and non-partisan went out and asked them to answer simple questions about ‘faith,’ and it turns out that few of them actually could. 

Now, I’m one of those stubborn old fellas who do not think that everyone is entitled to an opinion.  I think that we pay a fair ton of money to educate our population, and as a result everyone is only entitled, in my view, to an educated opinion.  If you have no real idea what you are talking about, I think that you are entitled to be very quiet.  Clearly that doesn’t stop anyone from expressing rampant hate, bigotry, paranoid delusions, outright misinformed nonsense, flagrant ignorance, and/or childish ‘logic’ in the sole defense of themselves.  

Yet, the facts are revealed.  If you read the whole survey, the news article was trying to be gentle.  A vast majority of the Protestants had never even heard of the Reformation, let alone of Martin Luther.  There was no group identified that knew less about not only religions overall but even their own origins and the meanings of their own rituals.  One fella I discussed these results with coined a phrase, and opined that the various branches of Protestant Christianity represented little more than the ‘religion of the unconsidered,’ in that it asked little more than obedience to self, and allowed each ‘adherent’ to define their own ‘religion’ as they saw fit.  Fair enough, and accurate, since that was the entire point of the ‘Reformation,’ and the wholesale re-writing of a once ‘Holy’ book into dozens of new versions.  

Still, ignorance, even of one’s own belief system, seems to be no impediment to arrogance and the active suppression of other thoughts, and actually seems to fuel such suppression while breeding and encouraging hatred and bigotry.  The majority, I’m afraid, begs to differ.  

The results are in, fellas – we know more about your own ‘religion,’ and all of the others as well, than you do.  Sorry about that . . . 

Bye fellas.  Burn each other with a clear conscience.


----------



## earl (Sep 30, 2010)

It took a while for me to read that . I was laughing too hard. That article has to be the saddest funniest thing I've read in a while.


----------



## pnome (Sep 30, 2010)

Give me link!!!!  Pls.


----------



## dexrusjak (Sep 30, 2010)

This one's from the AJC.

http://www.ajc.com/news/survey-atheists-agnostics-know-642125.html


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 30, 2010)

Michael Smerconish asked about half of the survey questions on his radio show.  I got 'em all right.  

They were not hard questions.  It's a shame people don't know more about their faith.  I suspect, though, that a survey about basic American history would produce the same dismal results.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 30, 2010)

But honestly though, most Christians I know care little about Martin Luther.
I certainly know of him and his worth but leave it at that.

The same with the protestant reformation.  I suspect few Christians see a real need to investigate those days.  Knowledge of the reformation probably serves the purposes of an atheist more than the purposes of a believer.

A Christian should primarily look to their present and future.
An atheist would obviously be a studier of the present and past problems in religion.

I'm just saying


----------



## gtparts (Sep 30, 2010)

Ronnie, I concur. Such details in history are not relevant to the daily  activities of the Christian walk any more than I need to know how my computer functions internally to utilize it for my purposes, to my satisfaction, at my current level of operator expertise.

Further more, Pew Research probably made no effort to determine what respondents meant when they asserted their "Christianity".

Attending the wedding of a distant cousin at the FBC across town doesn't make me a Baptist or a Christian. Used to spend summer at my great-aunt's, who drug us to the UMC, so I guess I'm a Methodist. Bicycled past the CoG twice a day to a little part-time job as a 14 year old kid to earn money for a car. I'm not sure if that makes me a Christian or a Schwinn.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Sep 30, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Ronnie, I concur. Such details in history are not relevant to the daily  activities of the Christian walk any more than I need to know how my computer functions internally to utilize it for my purposes, to my satisfaction, at my current level of operator expertise.



True enough.  It's just history of the religion, not the content of it.  Also it seems more profitable to spend Sunday school and sermons discussing salvation, tithing, instilling fear, and establishing what amounts to peer pressure instead of spending times on unnecessary things like how your denomination came to be.  Besides, a preacher or SS teacher wouldn't want a member to spend much time dwelling on the genocide, wholesale slaughter, and human rights violations that accompanied the Reformation and Calvinism.


----------



## TTom (Sep 30, 2010)

Such Details in history unimportant?

Really??? You're going with the old idea that it's not important to know who when where how and why your denomination split from the Catholic or other church? I mean it's not like you could gain any insight into why and how doctrines have shifted over the centuries.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 30, 2010)

TTom said:


> I mean it's not like you could gain any insight into why and how doctrines have shifted over the centuries.



Yeah, I think you should know the basics of your faith.  I'm not saying you should be able to speak volumes on every theory of eschatology, but would it really hurt to know some of the major points in Christian history and doctrine?  It's the same for American history.  You don't have to know which side won every battle of the Civil War, but words like "Gettysburg", "Lincoln", and "Grant" should not leave you scratching your head. 

Besides, I bet half the people who didn't know who Martin Luther was would have no problem identifying the Braves' middle reliever from 1977.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Sep 30, 2010)

Diogenes,
Like you needed an article to start feeling superior...


----------



## The Original Rooster (Sep 30, 2010)

For those who'd like to actually take the quiz, you can find it here.

http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 30, 2010)

RoosterTodd said:


> For those who'd like to actually take the quiz, you can find it here.
> 
> http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php



14 correct
1 incorrect

I missed the one concerning Pakistan's #1 religion.


----------



## earl (Sep 30, 2010)

Actually ignoring the past of Christianity allows you to make stupid statements like only Muslims kill in the name of their religion And other nuggets of scat. 
I can see why Christians endorse ignorance.


----------



## earl (Sep 30, 2010)

Actually ignoring the past of Christianity allows you to make stupid statements like only Muslims kill in the name of their religion And other nuggets of scat. 
I can see why Christians endorse ignorance.


----------



## TTom (Sep 30, 2010)

@Centerpin, I think I ned a sarcasm emoticon lesson. LOL

 It should read:

I mean it's not like you could gain any insight into why and how doctrines have shifted over the centuries.

(Insert  sarcasm emoticon here)


----------



## TTom (Sep 30, 2010)

15 of 15 with one Guess Johnathan Edwards Great Awakening was an educated guess.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> But honestly though, most Christians I know care little about Martin Luther.
> I certainly know of him and his worth but leave it at that.
> 
> The same with the protestant reformation.  I suspect few Christians see a real need to investigate those days.  Knowledge of the reformation probably serves the purposes of an atheist more than the purposes of a believer.
> ...





gtparts said:


> Ronnie, I concur. Such details in history are not relevant to the daily  activities of the Christian walk any more than I need to know how my computer functions internally to utilize it for my purposes, to my satisfaction, at my current level of operator expertise.
> 
> Further more, Pew Research probably made no effort to determine what respondents meant when they asserted their "Christianity".
> 
> Attending the wedding of a distant cousin at the FBC across town doesn't make me a Baptist or a Christian. Used to spend summer at my great-aunt's, who drug us to the UMC, so I guess I'm a Methodist. Bicycled past the CoG twice a day to a little part-time job as a 14 year old kid to earn money for a car. I'm not sure if that makes me a Christian or a Schwinn.



Seriously????? (referring to the blue)
wow....very surprising and disturbing at the same time.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2010)

earl said:


> Actually ignoring the past of Christianity allows you to make stupid statements like only Muslims kill in the name of their religion And other nuggets of scat. I can see why Christians endorse ignorance.



TIMEOUT.

You just made as BROAD a brushstroke with the blue comment as you assign to others in the red...


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 30, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> 14 correct
> 1 incorrect
> 
> I missed the one concerning Pakistan's #1 religion.



I scored the same thing and missed the same one..... maybe we're right and they're wrong Ronnie?


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 30, 2010)

TTom said:


> @Centerpin, I think I ned a sarcasm emoticon lesson. LOL
> 
> It should read:
> 
> ...



I got your sarcasm even without an emoticon.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 30, 2010)

RoosterTodd said:


> For those who'd like to actually take the quiz, you can find it here.
> 
> http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php



This is the quiz Smerconish read on his show.  He said this was only a sample of the questions.  The actual survey had 16 or 17 additional questions.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 30, 2010)

dawg2 said:


> Seriously????? (referring to the blue)
> wow....very surprising and disturbing at the same time.



Why are you surprised and disturbed at those comments??

At the same time.


----------



## earl (Sep 30, 2010)

dawg2 said:


> TIMEOUT.
> 
> You just made as BROAD a brushstroke with the blue comment as you assign to others in the red...





YOU can't be serious. With the comments some Christians have made here is stroke one.Stroke two would be the subject matter .Stroke three is that the ones who fought so hard to get a private subforum choose to come to the atheist subforum to discuss their knowledge ,or lack of , Christianity. Surely your ironic bone is going hay wire . The sarcasm emoticons are making this post their national headquarters.

I only wish I knew how to post in green . I am green with envy that not much I could ever say would top the silliness this thread has in it .


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 30, 2010)

earl said:


> YOU can't be serious. With the comments some Christians have made here is stroke one.Stroke two would be the subject matter .Stroke three is that the ones who fought so hard to get a private subforum choose to come to the atheist subforum to discuss their knowledge ,or lack of , Christianity. Surely your ironic bone is going hay wire . The sarcasm emoticons are making this post their national headquarters.
> 
> I only wish I knew how to post in green . I am green with envy that not much I could ever say would top the silliness this thread has in it .



The following was previously posted in this AAA forum by Bro. Harris:

Quote:Ahhh... but a very big difference this is. Everyone has a safe room... if you desire to be involved in aguing for or against the faith...you come here.

If you'd rather enjoy "forum fellowship" with like-minded people...stay in the others. 

No reason everyone can't be happy  End Quote.

This AAA forum IS the place to disagree and state your positions.  Not the other forum.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Sep 30, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> This is the quiz Smerconish read on his show.  He said this was only a sample of the questions.  The actual survey had 16 or 17 additional questions.



Ok, can you get the other ones for us? I'd like to see the whole thing.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 30, 2010)

RoosterTodd said:


> I'd like to see the whole thing.



So would I.  I did verify that there were 32 questions.  I found a summary of the questions on the Pew website, but it's tough finding the actual survey.  I only have my iPhone  now, so I'll post what I found tomorrow.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 1, 2010)

14-1 , also.

Truthfully, guys and gals, I don't feel much of a  connection to the Reformation, the Crusades, and a great deal of religious history. My religious beliefs and actions are almost entirely built on the personal relationship I have with Jesus and, while I am grateful for those who struggled to secure for me the religious liberty I experience and regretful for the un-Christlike behavior that are the Crusades and Inquisition, these things are water under the bridge. Little of it is relevant to my daily walk. I don't visit the sick in hospitals, nor help cut the grass of an older gentleman who is wheelchair-bound, nor make chili and give clothes to the Atlanta homeless, and many other things out of some sense of guilt for what happened in the 11th century or 12th or 16th century. And it is not because Martin Luther did these things for my example.

Some here have tried to tie my Christianity ( my relationship to God and my fellow man) to events in history for which Christ is not responsible, nor am I. The words of Jesus speak against those dark and sinful actions, then and now!  

I am a Christ follower, not a follower of church history or what might be classified as Christian history. I do not look to those things to guide my thoughts and actions, though they may have some benefit as cautionary truths. My thoughts and actions are guided by the Word of God and the Holy Spirit living in me. I know and serve only one Master, and His name is not Pew or History.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 1, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> Why are you surprised and disturbed at those comments??
> 
> At the same time.


The whole religion of "Christianity" is based on history.  Not understanding where you came from to me is folly.  Not understanding the origins of your faith is folly as well.  To simply jump on board without even knowing the past of that religion would be ridiculous.  You don't buy a used car without some history, or marry someone without getting to know their past.  

Why would you blindly leap into a religion without understanding its past?  History is what shapes the future.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 1, 2010)

gtparts said:


> ... I don't feel much of a connection to the Reformation ... My religious beliefs and actions are almost entirely built on the personal relationship I have with Jesus ...



You could not utter those words without Martin Luther.  I'd say that's a pretty significant connection to the Reformation.


----------



## TTom (Oct 1, 2010)

Ok this isn't ment as a gotcha or as any sort of slam, but GT and Ronnie, I believe your spiritual growth would be enanced with a little historical reading. Nothing here that is ment to bash the church or christians just historic written works that should be part of the independant reading and study of any christian.

1st set of works

The writings of Thomas Aquinas.

He's not anti Christian he was a 11th century monk and his writings influenced hugely the development of the church. He is considered one of the all time greatest minds to consider the various eternal questions of God. Literally hundreds of doctrine items of churches even today are rooted in his works.

Another watershed person in histiory who's writtings you might benefit from in your study would be the works of St Augustine.

Augustine is hugely influential on how the church has interpreted sex. but he provides a huge volume of work relating to religious thought that is still today used as church doctrine. 

These are not anti christian writings at all, both of these men were considered something along the lines of Christian rock stars of their time. Their perspectives and their study still echo through modern christian doctrine with most people not even knowing who they were.

It would be like us knowing that gravity is a law of nature but not knowing that Newton was the one who codified the law of gravity. Since we didn't know who Newton was we missed Calculus and most of the study of physics.

Many things that modern Christians take as articles of faith have their roots in the study and writings of these two men about God and man's relation with God.

BTW their writings are part of the curriculum for every seminary school. So they are required reading for all your preachers if they come from a seminary background.


----------



## earl (Oct 1, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> The following was previously posted in this AAA forum by Bro. Harris:
> 
> Quote:Ahhh... but a very big difference this is. Everyone has a safe room... if you desire to be involved in aguing for or against the faith...you come here.
> 
> ...



What about  your post re your happy or fun place ? Yet here you are .  Ironic.


----------



## Bitteroot (Oct 1, 2010)

15 of 15.. but like someone else said.. I guessed on the last one.

So....since I do know much about the history of the church.. the reformation movement, the dark ages, and many more things.. does this mean I should turn away from Christianity simply because some others acted stupidly in their quest for their vision of a "Christian" atmosphere? 

Those that think so.. are you also willing to turn away from your present hold on personal property and American status, simply because we as a nation treated the Indians so badly?   I'm gonna bet not.....if you are.. lead by example and lets roll.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 1, 2010)

RoosterTodd said:


> Ok, can you get the other ones for us? I'd like to see the whole thing.



This is the best I could do:


_Pew Forum Religious Knowledge Questions

Questions below have been paraphrased for brevity; most response options were rotated. See topline survey results (Appendix B) for exact wording and question order.

Bible
What is the first book of the Bible? (Open-ended)
What are the names of the first four books of the New Testament, that is, the four Gospels? (Open-ended)
Where, according to the Bible, was Jesus born? Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Nazareth or Jericho?
Which of these is NOT in the Ten Commandments? Do unto others…, no adultery, no stealing, keep Sabbath?
Which figure is associated with remaining obedient to God despite suffering? Job, Elijah, Moses or Abraham?
Which figure is associated with leading the exodus from Egypt? Moses, Job, Elijah or Abraham?
Which figure is associated with willingness to sacrifice his son for God? Abraham, Job, Moses or Elijah?

Elements of Christianity
What is Catholic teaching about bread and wine in Communion? They become body and blood, or are symbols?
Which group traditionally teaches that salvation is through faith alone? Protestants, Catholics, both or neither?
Was Mother Teresa Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Mormon?
What is the name of the person whose writings and actions inspired the Reformation? Luther, Aquinas or Wesley?
Who was a preacher during the First Great Awakening? Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney or Billy Graham?

Elements of Judaism
When does the Jewish Sabbath begin? Friday, Saturday or Sunday?
Was Maimonides Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu or Mormon?


Elements of Mormonism
When was the Mormon religion founded? After 1800, between 1200 and 1800, or before 1200 A.D.? 
The Book of Mormon tells of Jesus appearing to people in what area? The Americas, Middle East or Asia?
Was Joseph Smith Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu?


World Religions
Is Ramadan the Islamic holy month, the Hindu festival of lights or a Jewish day of atonement?
Do you happen to know the name of the holy book of Islam? (Open-ended)
Which religion aims at nirvana, the state of being free from suffering? Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam?
Is the Dalai Lama Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Catholic or Mormon?
In which religion are Vishnu and Shiva central figures? Hinduism, Islam or Taoism?
What is the religion of most people in India? Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or Christian?
What is the religion of most people in Pakistan? Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian?
What is the religion of most people in Indonesia? Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian?
Who is the king of Gods in Greek mythology? Zeus, Mars or Apollo?


Atheism and Agnosticism
Is an atheist someone who does NOT believe in God, believes in God, or is unsure whether God exists? 
Is an agnostic someone who is unsure whether God exists, does NOT believe in God, or believes in God?


Religion in Public Life
What does Constitution say about religion? Separation of church and state, emphasize Christianity, or nothing?
According to the Supreme Court, can a public school teacher lead a class in prayer?
According to the Supreme Court, can a public school teacher read from the Bible as an example of literature?
According to the Supreme Court, can a public school teacher offer a class comparing the world’s religions?_

I found this here:  

http://pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Who-Knows-What-About-Religion.aspx


And here is the complete survey.  (This was a phone survey, so the format is kind of confusing.)

http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Belief_and_Practices/religious-knowledge-questionnaire.pdf


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 1, 2010)

It is indeed sad.  That said, it really only confirms one thing for me.  I've said it many times in this area....most people in this country identify themselves as "Christian" as if it's the same type of question as "Race".  Many of those who identify themselves as "Christian" exhibit zero evidence of having a relationship with Christ.  

There is an enormous gap in this country between the number of "Christians" and the number of Christ followers.  That is all that study confirms for me.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 1, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> It is indeed sad.



Yes.

I wish Pew had also thrown in 10-15 pop culture questions as a bonus.  I'd be willing to bet most people who were unfamiliar with Martin Luther would have no problems identifying Lady Gaga or telling you who Kim Kardashian is currently dating.


----------



## TTom (Oct 1, 2010)

You mean Lady Gaga and Kim Kardashian are not dating each other? LOL


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 1, 2010)

TTom said:


> Ok this isn't ment as a gotcha or as any sort of slam, but GT and Ronnie, I believe your spiritual growth would be enanced with a little historical reading. Nothing here that is ment to bash the church or christians just historic written works that should be part of the independant reading and study of any christian.
> 
> 1st set of works
> 
> ...




One of the reasons there's such a great divide in the Christianity community today is because people spend so much time reading about Calvin, and Luther, and Campbell, and Augustine, and Aquinas.

I'm not interested in world religion.  I'm interested in God's word.  Like the old song says:  "I'd rather drink from the well than from the stream."
Everytime I start learning from anyone other than God's word I stand a great chance of contaminating what I've already learned and how I'll preceive something in the future.

Don't worry, I do understand that I need an understanding of my history.
Because of that, I want to know how Moses related to God.  I study King Saul's life.  And King David's life.
And I look at the life of Jesus, and a man named Stephen, and a young fellow named John Mark.
Those are the people I want to mark my life.

I don't want to be the Christian that Calvin made possible.
I want to be the Christian that Christ set me to be.

God bless Martin Luther.  But  Bro Luther was a human being and I don't follow him and don't really depend upon his advice.

Remove everything that's been learned since the apostles died and you'll find what I search for and what we all need.

History!  Man I got me a big ol' history book.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Oct 1, 2010)

Thank you centerpin!


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 1, 2010)

dawg2 said:


> The whole religion of "Christianity" is based on history.  Not understanding where you came from to me is folly.  Not understanding the origins of your faith is folly as well.  To simply jump on board without even knowing the past of that religion would be ridiculous.  You don't buy a used car without some history, or marry someone without getting to know their past.
> 
> Why would you blindly leap into a religion without understanding its past?  History is what shapes the future.



There have been too many mistakes made between Jesus and now for me to get very involved in much of the manusha that's in between.
Too many errors.  Too many men who became more important than the original.

I'm familiar with all the things involved:  the Catholic church; Martin Luther; then all the denominations; and then the attempts to leave denominationalism.

Knowing all that only proves to me how much more important it is to forget them and go back to God's word totally and completely.


----------



## tomtlb66 (Oct 1, 2010)

I find it amusing when someone who is an atheist or a nonbeliever says they know more about my religion than I do. It is a quiz and I understand the importance of my christian history. I also knoe the truth about my religion, I do not need the approval of a newspaper or another person to know what I believe. Honestly, this is my stance on my belief, Jesus did die on the cross for all of our sins and He was raised from the dead and the bible is the living word of God. No one, and I mean no one will tell me any different.

As far as me being ignorant to the worlds view of my beliefs and my Lord and Savior, thats fine. I don't care what anyone thinks of me, I will keep my heart right before the Lord and pray for everyone I can pray for and thats all I can do.

If this was a jab at my beliefs, well it didn't work, I still love everyone the best that I can, and I will still pray for everyone, especially the atheists. God Bless each and everyone of you, you are in my prayers.


----------



## TTom (Oct 1, 2010)

Ronnie we'll likely never be in the same spiritual camp in this life.

But I get what you are saying, I'm not sure I can agree with that perspective fully, but I don't have to and you sure don't need me to.


----------



## Bitteroot (Oct 1, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> One of the reasons there's such a great divide in the Christianity community today is because people spend so much time reading about Calvin, and Luther, and Campbell, and Augustine, and Aquinas.
> 
> I'm not interested in world religion.  I'm interested in God's word.  Like the old song says:  "I'd rather drink from the well than from the stream."
> Everytime I start learning from anyone other than God's word I stand a great chance of contaminating what I've already learned and how I'll preceive something in the future.
> ...



you're so right on this Ronnie...if there is a lapse in what we now know as the "modern" church by a 1000 years, and then suddenly a bible appeared in the hands of someone that had never read it... if he studied the context as a whole, it would in my opinion create a christian if applied to their life. Nothing else, and all history lost prior to and after would ever matter to the word as it was given. There is no more to be said, there remains no more sacrifice for the sins of man. It is, when studied and applied...perfect. Not the person, the faith.  When the seed is planted, it will grow a christain everytime, when it is cast aside it cannot establish itself.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 1, 2010)

Bitteroot said:


> ...if there is a lapse in what we now know as the "modern" church by a 1000 years, and then suddenly a bible appeared in the hands of someone that had never read it... if he studied the context as a whole, it would in my opinion create a christian if applied to their life.



There’s no need for the “if” in your statement.  A cursory reading of history will demonstrate that this has basically already happened.  For roughly 1,500 years, the Bible was largely unavailable to the common man.  The invention of the printing press ended this.  So, I agree with you;  it has produced Christians.  Unfortunately, it has not produced unity.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 1, 2010)

tomtlb66 said:


> I find it amusing when someone who is an atheist or a nonbeliever says they know more about my religion than I do. It is a quiz and I understand the importance of my christian history. I also knoe the truth about my religion, I do not need the approval of a newspaper or another person to know what I believe. Honestly, this is my stance on my belief, Jesus did die on the cross for all of our sins and He was raised from the dead and the bible is the living word of God. No one, and I mean no one will tell me any different.
> 
> As far as me being ignorant to the worlds view of my beliefs and my Lord and Savior, thats fine. I don't care what anyone thinks of me, I will keep my heart right before the Lord and pray for everyone I can pray for and thats all I can do.
> 
> If this was a jab at my beliefs, well it didn't work, I still love everyone the best that I can, and I will still pray for everyone, especially the atheists. God Bless each and everyone of you, you are in my prayers.



And I will light an incense to Ganesh for YOU.


----------



## tomtlb66 (Oct 1, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> And I will light an incense to Ganesh for YOU.



Thats fine, thank you. I really wasn't trying to upset anyone, but if I did, sorry about that. I am who I am, I will pray for everyone like I said and may God Bless each and everyone of you.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 2, 2010)

tomtlb66 said:


> Thats fine, thank you. I really wasn't trying to upset anyone, but if I did, sorry about that. I am who I am, I will pray for everyone like I said and may God Bless each and everyone of you.




May the shining face of Ganesh shower many blessings upon you as well.


----------



## Diogenes (Oct 2, 2010)

And so the weaseling and squirming begins – 

“But honestly though, most Christians I know care little about Martin Luther.”

“The same with the protestant reformation. I suspect few Christians see a real need to investigate those days.”

“A Christian should primarily look to their present and future.”

How can one disagree with logic like that?  The past, where all that pesky Biblical stuff may or may not have happened, is irrelevant, by this telling, and just how the ‘belief’ of the present and the future might have come about is similarly of no consequence.  What matters is the ‘present’ belief . . . no matter how it came to be believed . . .

Then the weaseling, squirming and rationalization is immediately ratified – 

“Such details in history are not relevant to the daily activities of the Christian walk any more than I need to know how my computer functions internally to utilize it for my purposes, to my satisfaction, at my current level of operator expertise.”

Odd.  So, one need not know how one’s belief system originated or developed, but need only key in the correct programming language, like in your computer, in order to have that belief system serve the purposes you wish?  Regardless of the level of ‘operator expertise?’   Rings a bit hollow as a rationalization, and actually sounds sort of desperate – do you really mean to say that folks who ‘believe’ are merely ‘operating’ a system they do not understand?  Gosh.  How unsurprising.

Then we have the required insult, which is the last refuge of undereducated scoundrels – “Diogenes,
Like you needed an article to start feeling superior...”   SIR, I made no claim of superiority, but merely pointed out a purely scholarly study of the ignorance of the ‘believers’ concerning their own various faiths. 

Then the equally required attempt at superiority through personal refutation – ‘14 correct, 1 incorrect. I missed the one concerning Pakistan's #1 religion.’  And a number of other similar attempts – notwithstanding that the full questionnaire was not provided and notwithstanding the actual results – it may well be to one’s individual credit to have ‘scored’ well, but if your personal score is meant to invalidate the survey then you’ll be held personally responsible for the overall ignorance of the balance of the respondents.  One or two exceptions do not prove nor disprove the facts . . .  most ‘believers,’ it would appear, have no idea what they believe and even less idea what they oppose.

Then we get the required evangelizing, which never ends – “I don't feel much of a connection to the Reformation, the Crusades, and a great deal of religious history. My religious beliefs and actions are almost entirely built on the personal relationship I have with Jesus . . . “   And here we are to tremble – none of the knowledge matters, because some of you fellas have Jesus over to dinner a few times a week, and know the fella personally.  Perhaps you exchange stories over supper, and have a good laugh at our expense.  But if that ‘personal relationship’ is actually the case, well, boy howdy, you all seem pretty quiet when we ask you to describe these ‘personal’ encounters.  Perhaps they are a bit too ‘personal’ for us to understand . . . 

We then get the automatic appeal to illogic and mystery – “The words of Jesus speak against those dark and sinful actions, then and now! I am a Christ follower, not a follower of church history or what might be classified as Christian history.”   Well, nothing personal, but Jesus never wrote a single word.  Not one.  Every word He is purported to have said, whether true or untrue, is contained entirely in church history, and nowhere else.  Most particularly, those purported words are contained entirely in Christian history.  So it would be more than a bit odd to pretend to follow one while rejecting the other.  They are one and the same.

We also see the obligatory false premise – “does this mean I should turn away from Christianity simply because some others acted stupidly in their quest for their vision of a "Christian" atmosphere? Those that think so.. are you also willing to turn away from your present hold on personal property and American status, simply because we as a nation treated the Indians so badly?”  Which is akin to asking if we ought to have banned Chlordane simply because it killed most, but not all, of the people who came in contact with it.  The question asks itself, and needs no further asking. I made no premise concerning the sins of anyone’s past, but only of the ignorance of same.  Here you make a presumption only in order to argue with your own presumption, and I’ll leave you to that folly.  Let us know how that argument with your own argument turns out.  We’ll wait.  Breathlessly. 

Then we get the smug self-affirmation, that forgets that it is based on something other than self, rejecting all others and dismissing even the simple basis of the belief in favor of the personal  – “I'm not interested in world religion. I'm interested in God's word. Like the old song says: "I'd rather drink from the well than from the stream."
Everytime I start learning from anyone other than God's word I stand a great chance of contaminating what I've already learned and how I'll preceive something in the future.”

So you, personally, have received God’s word?  Or are you already ‘contaminated’ by having read the ‘King James Version’ of that word?  Do you mean that your belief sprung fully formed from God, uninformed by any outside source, and that the version of ‘god’s word’ that was finally approved, edited, filtered, translated, and conveyed to you through thousands of others had no bearing in the matter?  You learned all of what you ‘believe’ first hand?  And if that is so, learning other thoughts is a contamination of your purity?  Can your ‘personal’ reception of the words of God himself, conveyed to you alone, possibly be diluted with such a base and useless thing as learning the thoughts of others?  Seems a rather delicate bit of ‘belief,’ that is so easily threatened, transmitted, as seems clear, directly to you from God himself.

Then the affirmation of the rejection of the proven ignorance of the topic at hand  – “History! Man I got me a big ol' history book.”  Notwithstanding that the ‘history’ book contains none at all, and is largely a book of disconnected and hardly coherent parables that don’t even agree with themselves in most cases, one would be held to a rather higher standard.  Put up some of this ‘history,’ and demonstrate it with something other than an abstract ‘belief.’  We’ll wait.

We even benefit from the arrogant dismissal – “I find it amusing when someone who is an atheist or a nonbeliever says they know more about my religion than I do.”  Nice.  But unfortunately, nearly everyone knows more about religions than the ‘true believers’ of any stripe do, and this bit of information ought to both shame and humble, but seems to do neither.  I have no idea what your particular religion is, sir, but unless you have also made up the terms of it as you went along, I promise that a dozen people here, and a few hundred thousand who wouldn’t even bother with you on this level, know far more about it.

The OP, restated in simple terms – religious people know less about their ‘belief’ than the non-religious.  

I’m sorry if that is disturbing, but I’m not responsible in any way for the things y’all didn’t bother learning, yet decided to believe anyway.

So this thread is still waiting for someone to stand and bring an actual understanding of their beliefs, and a justification of same, rather than the  simple rejection of why such a thing might be necessary.


----------



## tomtlb66 (Oct 2, 2010)

First off, I was not trying to be arrogant about anything that I said. So, if I came across that way forgive me. I am learning more and more about my religion everyday. I find it amazing how God works in m,y life and the miracles that He has done for me and my family.

Do I know every lkittle detail of my religion, no I do not. With that being said, I believe no one does. This is my walk with the Lord and I try my hardest to do what He wants me to do. I never offend anyone, if I do I am sorry about that. I do take it personal when I feel someone tries to offend me and my beliefs and I try to posts comments here in a very respectful manner as well.

I never try to judge anyone, if you have read my posts please point out any judgement that I threw out to anyone.
All I am saying is this, I might not be the smartest person on this forum, and thats fine. I know where my heart is and where my relationship with Jesus is. I want to share the good news of Jesus, now if someone doesn't believe the way that I do, thats there belief, not mine, but I think that I have done what I feel God wants me to do and I feel I have done it in a respectful manner. Thank you and God bless


----------



## The Original Rooster (Oct 2, 2010)

Diogenes, you are a funny guy. I wish you the best of luck.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 2, 2010)

tomtlb66 said:


> First off, I was not trying to be arrogant about anything that I said. So, if I came across that way forgive me. I am learning more and more about my religion everyday. I find it amazing how God works in m,y life and the miracles that He has done for me and my family.
> 
> Do I know every lkittle detail of my religion, no I do not. With that being said, I believe no one does. This is my walk with the Lord and I try my hardest to do what He wants me to do. I never offend anyone, if I do I am sorry about that. I do take it personal when I feel someone tries to offend me and my beliefs and I try to posts comments here in a very respectful manner as well.
> 
> ...



Your respect and sincerity is duly noted and appreciated.  What you MUST understand is that to non believers, you are like that Jehova's witness that came knocking on your door trying to pass off some pamphlet.  What do you do when they knock on the door?  Hopefully, that's how you have been treated here.


----------



## tomtlb66 (Oct 2, 2010)

I would welcome them in. If I come across pushy, thats not my intention. All I am trying to do is to be kind and express how I believe and offer the opprtunity, if wanted, to share my beliefs with someone. Thats all


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 2, 2010)

tomtlb66 said:


> I would welcome them in. If I come across pushy, thats not my intention. All I am trying to do is to be kind and express how I believe and offer the opprtunity, if wanted, to share my beliefs with someone. Thats all



Really, you welcome them in every time?  You must not get them like I do.  Your not pushy at all.  

Just as an exercise, to try to get you to see things from my perspective:   Imagine a Buddhist came to you to try to get you to convert.  You would politely say "no thank you".   That's all that's happening here.  Actually, you may be inclined to try to try to convert HIM (since you're supposed to).  You won't get any of that from me.   I promise.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 5, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> And so the weaseling and squirming begins –
> 
> “But honestly though, most Christians I know care little about Martin Luther.”
> 
> ...



I don't get it, I thought you were done?


----------



## gtparts (Oct 5, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> True enough.  It's just history of the religion, not the content of it.  Also it seems more profitable to spend Sunday school and sermons discussing salvation, tithing, instilling fear, and establishing what amounts to peer pressure instead of spending times on unnecessary things like how your denomination came to be.  Besides, a preacher or SS teacher wouldn't want a member to spend much time dwelling on the genocide, wholesale slaughter, and human rights violations that accompanied the Reformation and Calvinism.



Not bad, six. You got about 60% right.
We do not spend time "instilling fear, and establishing what amounts to peer pressure". Since attendance in SS or the worship service is voluntary, most of those who participate are like-minded and don't require guilt and re-education sessions. As a SS teacher, I find that after all the praying and Bible study, there isn't enough time for or interest in the Reformation or Calvin. We tend to go straight back to the Word of God for the history that is relevant to being a follower of Christ. Kind of makes sense that since Jesus is the model, we look to Him and not Calvin or Luther.





TTom said:


> Such Details in history unimportant?
> 
> Really??? You're going with the old idea that it's not important to know who when where how and why your denomination split from the Catholic or other church? I mean it's not like you could gain any insight into why and how doctrines have shifted over the centuries.



If you will note my comments to six, we take our cues from Scripture. If you go to the original as the source, you do not need to waste time on the modifications and meanderings that have taken place in the intervening years. Am I ignorant of the events of that time period? No, but to be honest, I make no effort to focus on anything but those things which address the needs of the lost and the edification of the saved. I major on the majors. I'll leave that other stuff to the historians to fight over, seeing as they seem to think their job is to express opinions by slanting perspective, rather than just presenting the facts. They are in near constant disagreement, based on their personal viewpoints.


----------



## earl (Oct 5, 2010)

Interestingly enough , the Catholic s are one of the few who have 2,000 years of interpreting scriptures . And I have heard that only those filled with the Holy  Spirit can interpret God's word correctly . So what's the problem getting the real deal from a religion that has 2,000 years of it ? 

Like wise modern Christians often look to commentaries ,written by modern men , to explain things to them. Others look to prestigious Christians like Grahm , Swaggart ,Hinn , etc.

Very few care to take on the burden of reading the Bible just as it is written .


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 5, 2010)

Not trying to pick on you, but my “irony detector” went off after reading this:



gtparts said:


> …  there isn't enough time for or interest in the Reformation or Calvin. We tend to go straight back to the Word of God for the history that is relevant to being a follower of Christ. Kind of makes sense that since Jesus is the model, we look to Him and not Calvin or Luther.



The idea of going “straight back to the Word of God” came directly from Luther, Calvin and the other reformers.  Without them, you’d be posting in a “name your favorite Pope” thread on a Catholic board. 



gtparts said:


> … They are in near constant disagreement, based on their personal viewpoints.



… as are many members who post here.  Just check out any thread involving OSAS, baptism, eschatology, KJV only, etc.


----------



## Diogenes (Oct 6, 2010)

Ted BSR asks, “I don't get it, I thought you were done?”

My thread, ted, it would be irresponsible not to follow it through . . .  

And so the OP – 

The ‘Word of God’ seems to have undergone some rather startling revisions, rewritings, reinterpretations, and editing over the years.  As a result, unless one has the cell phone number of this proposed God, just what was said or was not seems to be open to just about anything one wishes to put forward.  That cannot be the case, if one is a ‘believer.’

As one fella  put it – everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.

Knowing nothing at all about one’s dearly held beliefs in the supernatural is indeed a problem, and cannot be dismissed with platitudes, anecdotes, or claims to have forged a ‘new’ covenant. Either there is a singular ‘Word of God’ or there is not, and the facts of the matter, world-wide and historically (for ‘All of Creation’, if you will) reveal that there is not.  

If Christianity has any valid basis whatsoever, and it is clear that it does not, the basis for the first 1,517 years of it was the Church of Rome.  For a huge number of reasons, too numerous to put into a single post, quite a lot of folks begged to differ with this Church and the arrogant and violent imposition of its will.  Some small number of those who thought otherwise were also self-styled Christians, or so they had been led to believe, and the revolt internally against their own Church was called the Protestant Reformation, started by Martin Luther in 1517.  

Now, notwithstanding the fact that at this juncture there existed not a single document or ‘writing’ concerning ‘Christianity’ that hadn’t already been filtered through 1500-odd years of illiteracy, translation, conquest, destruction, power-seeking, and wholesale revision (all done in the name of the ‘Love of God’ so far as the masses needed to be concerned), and notwithstanding the fact that the OT upon which all of this house of cards was built suffers from all of the same problems and more (being a bit older and even more questionable in both authorship and origin), folks somehow lost sight of these problems of ‘Spirituality’ and decided to take temporal matters of power into their own hands.  Who could have guessed such a thing would happen?

The first ‘Crusade’ was launched by the Church of Rome against the Protestants, counting Luther, his followers, and also the Waldensians as bitter enemies, and was meant to protect the ‘Purity of the Faith.’   Does this sound vaguely familiar, Oh thee who deny history has a bearing?  Protestantism, in all of the resulting forms, came about because of a rejection of the established Church that had endured for 1500 years.  

Once this wedge had been driven into the ‘Word of God’ as it had been established, revised, refined, promulgated and defended for a century and a half, well – boy howdy!  It was open season.  Every power-mad maniac and their maiden aunt jumped into the fray, writing their own versions and interpretations and ‘editions,’ and even seeking the Godly intervention and power of a King (James) to ratify their own writing of this Word.  

The problem with seeking out a power-mad, inbred imbecile to hide behind while putting forward a power-driven agenda ought to have been obvious, but it seems clearer, now,  from an historical perspective – Witness the establishment of the Church of England, created by the hand of a King.  Oops.  The freedom to reject what had been the ‘Word of God’ for 1500 years and re-write it into factional interpretations went right out the window there, when the King decided to pull a page from even more ancient history and pull a Constantine on them and establish himself as the Pope of all Godly Words.  Who could have guessed such a thing would happen?

In a way, we as Americans have the idiocy of religious writings and re-writings, and the power obsessed morons who sought to control one and all through their own ‘interpretations’ of the ‘Word of God’ to thank.  

The first settlers here from Europe and the British Isles were largely religious exiles.  They were wholly ignorant of their own religions even then, but stubbornly willing to cross an ocean to make a point.  That the point ended up being (historically) that they were largely zealots and hypocrites is well established, since the first thing they did upon arriving was to slaughter and conquer the native populations and seek to expand and consolidate power only for themselves, then expand into any number of  ‘religious’ communities for whom the taking of slaves from across the sea was morally defensible, so long as it enriched them and not their opponents.  Who would have guessed such a thing would happen?

‘God’ told them to act that way, one must conclude, since every and all claimed the ‘Word’ as their sword and shield, and continues to do so  . . .   Be serious.  There is no ‘Word,’ and never has been in all of recorded history.  There are the ravings of lunatics and the phantasmagorical stories of men invented on the spot for the sole purpose of playing on the fears, superstitions, and ignorance of other men --  all for one purpose and one alone – to establish and enforce power.  Sorry.  But that is the whole story.  Who would have guessed?

So, in a nutshell – no.  No – you may not with any intellectual or moral authority claim that the history and origins of your own deeply-held ‘beliefs’ are of no relevance. It is impossible to lay claim to a guiding ethos without examining and accepting the basis of it – ‘belief’ did not spring, fully formed, from your own breast.  No – you may not lay claim to the ‘righteousness’ of your belief if you are ignorant of just how that belief arose, and have no knowledge whatsoever of its fundaments and facts.  Belief did not create men – men created belief, and men have created and abandoned many beliefs over the millennia, and will continue to do so.  No – you hold no key or special access to the supernatural, over the vast majority of your peers on this planet simply by virtue of ‘believing’ one thing over another.  A fact is a fact, and a belief is a chimera, taunting the ignorant for the benefit of those who would threaten men with ghosts.  

A wise man once said that knowledge is power, and that unfortunately most poor fools are powerless.  Religious ‘leaders,’ as well as would-be ‘leaders’ of any stripe, tend to count on that truism . . .  Y’all have never let them down . . .


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 14, 2010)

That quiz was general religion and some of it not information that concerns me. I guess you figured out that I did not do very well


----------



## Diogenes (Oct 15, 2010)

“That quiz was general religion and some of it not information that concerns me. I guess you figured out that I did not do very well”

Sir, with all due respect, ‘general religion’ as you put it concerns you very much, and concerns everyone here.  Even a casual glance at this board, or more specifically at this forum, reveals ‘pride and prejudice’ in every form.  Digging in one’s heels, and taking a stand for a single viewpoint would of necessity require at least a fundamental understanding of one’s own belief system, and supporting your own belief system against all others would require a fundamental understanding of the others that you oppose and reject.    Yet, what I see as responses continue to try to rationalize that no such information or understanding is required --  so I’m afraid that you force me to ask – Just what DOES constitute, “information that concerns me?”

Do the origins and history and doctrines and development of your own dearly held beliefs actually stand as things that are no concern of yours?  

Do you merely ‘believe’ because you were told to do so, and are willing to allow those ‘beliefs’ to stand unexamined?  

I would humbly submit the thought that blind, unconsidered, and yet still passionate belief in anything whatsoever is the whole basis of the atrocities that history is littered with.

Following, without understanding, is the prescription that wrote everything from the demise of the Tolteca/Maya/Aztec/Inca civilizations to the several World Wars, and nearly everything that has tortured mankind before, between, and since.  Relying on a ‘leader’ to tell you what to believe, and why, and when; as well as relying on that ‘leader’ to define your enemies for you is written in the pages of history in full flower.  

It concerns you because you are a ‘soldier’ in ideological wars that are not of your making and are not within your power to change through any means other than education.  You must know yourself, first, before you can declare an ‘enemy,’ and the more you get to know your declared ‘religious enemies’ the more you will see similarities rather than differences.  Upon extended study, you will find that ignorance is the fuel that feeds most fires, and that exploiting ignorance is the spark that empowers most ‘leaders.’

Is there a fundamental difference between the Christian zeal to ‘convert’ nonbelievers, the Muslim zeal to do the same, and the zeal of the U.S. to spread capitalism and democracy to the unwashed heathen of the world, or the zeal of the Chinese to spread a hybrid centralized autocracy?  

Not really.  The ‘leaders’ of every conquest-minded movement throughout history have had no problem raising legions of troops to fight and die for the egos of the leaders, so long as the leaders have brain-washed the masses by failing to tell them a few fundamental things.  So it will always be.

Information will always concern you, and failing to seek it will always leave you as a pawn and a foot-soldier to the whims of others who possess the information.  Some of us wish to break that cycle, but others seem quite content to perpetuate it.

Knowing, I might suggest, is usually far better than believing.


----------



## earl (Oct 15, 2010)

Ignorance is bliss. Blind faith is better.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 15, 2010)

Diogenes said:
			
		

> *“My final post in the spiritual forums.”
> 
> Count me in WTM.*



and then.....



Diogenes said:


> “That quiz was general religion and some of it not information that concerns me. I guess you figured out that I did not do very well”
> 
> Sir, with all due respect, ‘general religion’ as you put it concerns you very much, and concerns everyone here.  Even a casual glance at this board, or more specifically at this forum, reveals ‘pride and prejudice’ in every form.  Digging in one’s heels, and taking a stand for a single viewpoint would of necessity require at least a fundamental understanding of one’s own belief system, and supporting your own belief system against all others would require a fundamental understanding of the others that you oppose and reject.    Yet, what I see as responses continue to try to rationalize that no such information or understanding is required --  so I’m afraid that you force me to ask – Just what DOES constitute, “information that concerns me?”
> 
> ...






I KNEW it was too good to be true. 

(and yes, I realize the irony since I also said I was taking a break.)


----------



## campinnurse (Oct 15, 2010)

I read that article as well. I was not surprised by the findings. I was glad to see it in print.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 15, 2010)

Diogenes - Christianity is not about Christians, it is about Christ.  I agree, there is no proof.  There is not meant to be.  Your articulate rant is as old as my beliefs. Nothing original.  Seek with your heart, and you will find.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 17, 2010)

Hello Diogenes, I completly agree with your OP, I see your point, have always claimed that myself. But, differently. Firstly, how I see it; In my experience as being raised baptist, I see people,claiming to be Christians, who know nothing about the bible. I even know a preacher who has only read it 4 times. They hold tightly to their traditions, not even knowing that are just that, traditions. Secondly, for your OP, I very much would like to know the history from which my beliefs have come. I don't usually concern myself with things like John Smith although I know about him. Pakitan beliefs,Nirvina and such are something I never wish to know. Here is why I believe that athiest know more about religion than confessors of Christ. Most Christians simply believe as they have been taught, grew up in a denomination, now believe only their denominational beliefs are correct although most don't even know the differences. What I suspect about athiest, is that at some time in their life, they wrestled with the thought, is there a God. Driven by their desire to find out what is truth, searched intently through whatever sources they could find including the bible. During this period in their life, they aquired much information, eventually, coming to a negative conclusion. It would be helpful if you would correct my assumptions. Anyway, maybe you can help me out, I would like to study up on the time period up to and including 325AD. I know it was a very corrupt time. Any recommendations?


----------

