Study: 24% of Americans now either atheist, agnostic, or deist
posted at 5:50 pm on March 9, 2009 by Allahpundit
Red meat to cleanse the palate via the American Religious Identification Survey, well seasoned and tenderized thanks to a sample of 54,000 people. (Margin of error: 0.5 percent.) You’ll find the key data in Table 3. Self-identified atheists and agnostics have tripled since 1990, from 1.1 million people to north of 3.6 million — but the number who now claim “no religion” is 34 million, or fully 15 percent. So where does that 24 percent figure in the headline come from? Right here:
Note that the percentage who agree that “there is no such thing” is more than three times the percentage who self-identify as atheist in Table 3, meaning people are eschewing the label — probably either because of residual stigma in the culture or because high-profile proselytizing atheists have done such a good job of alienating the public that even those who agree with them don’t want to be associated. Meanwhile, people agreeing with any of the first three statements total 12.1 percent, which is more than seven times the total number of self-identified atheists and agnostics in Table 3. Toss in the deists via the fourth statement and you reach an obvious conclusion: A lot of people who identify as Christian have some highly nuanced beliefs about the Christian concept of God. What would one call a Christian who’s not sure he believes in a divine father? An atheistic theist? That label has been used before.
Exit question: How skewed is the data by the fact it only accounts for U.S. adults and therefore offers no prediction about the next generation? Hmmmm.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
As the election has shown many who call themselves ‘christian’ vote for the most pro-abortion candidate ever…I think many of these people are CINOs (christians in name only) and they’re worse than the atheists…far worse.
I tend to believe true christians are always a minority 10-20 percent of a population…and probably less than half of those at any given church…
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 9:33 PM
“I happen to believe that the way to God is through Christ; others have different avenues to God and I believe we pray to the same Almighty.” -George Bush
And the key, as in with this case, is to use the words, “I believe,” in otherwords, “To me, God is like this…” and you shape a god to suit yourself as Mr. Bush has done.
Here’s a great quote from A.W. Tozer, the well-known and respected Bible teacher on this subject:
“The vague and tenuous hope that God is too kind to punish the ungodly has become a deadly opiate for the consciences of millions. It hushes their fears and allows them to practice all pleasent forms of iniquity while death draws every day nearer and the command to repent goes unregarded.” -A.W. Tozer
And that really does sum up idolatry. When we create a god to suit ourselves that god isn’t to be feared. That god smiles on iniquity and we get closer and closer and closer to death until that day arrives and you realize in truth your god didn’t exist. He was a figment of your imagination that you made up to suit yourself.
apacalyps on March 9, 2009 at 9:33 PM
New Poll Question: How many Americans believe they were spontaneously generated from a rock?
apacalyps on March 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM
this is the type of ‘christians’ I was talkin about (CINOs) a waste of space…
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM
yeah most people have a god in their own image….
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Piglet: And nothing I’m saying disputes what you’re saying. I literally don’t know this Dr. Dobson at all.
As for Christianity being a club hanging over the head of the Republican party… if the Republican party is smart, they’ll return to their conservative roots (both fiscally and socially) and form a big tent coalition that will outfight the Democrats.
What everyone seems to miss amidst the blame-throwing that’s going on is that Conservatism is indeed the majority view in the country, but not in a whole sense. The Republicans need to realize that the Christian Right and the Libertarians need them much more than the reverse.
If you look at the 4-way split that happens when you cross social/fiscal with liberal/conservative, you get the following pairs:
Social Conservative/Fiscal Conservative: Conservative
Social Liberal/Fiscal Liberal: Liberal
Social Conservative/Fiscal Liberal: (This is where most people see what they call the ‘Religious Right’)
Social Liberal/Fiscal Conservative: Libertarian
What’s missing is that Libertarians (generally) care a lot more about fiscal conservatism than social liberalism, and the Religious Right is almost unanimous in its social conservatism, but there is nothing approaching a majority view on the fiscal front.
Therefore, if you have the choice between a real liberal candidate (which Obama was) and a real conservative candidate (which we haven’t seen in a while), people should vote on the issues, and a primarily social conservative will vote for the candidate that supports those plans (that should be the Republican), and a primarily fiscally conservative will do the same.
This explains why when a truly conservative candidate is put forward, they generally win easily.
Look at the Obama administration. The Religious Right can see the handwriting on the wall regarding abortion and stem-cell research, and _knows_ this administration isn’t what they want. The Libertarians are, if anything, _more_ outraged at the fiscal irresponsibility (to put it VERY mildly) of the current administration.
This is a lesson in Bismarckian politics. To wit: never ever let someone who needs you more than you need them dictate the terms of the relationship. Bismarck did this with Austria. Bismarck refused to countenance virtually anything Austria did, and as a result Austria had to cleave politically with Germany to ensure its survival. With Kaiser Wilhelm’s dismissal of Bismarck and his political blank check to Austria, we got… WWI.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 9:41 PM
No. Or rather, at least not in Connecticut.
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Whats with all these polls? Its annoying when the media uses polls as their news for the day, and its annoying when Hot Air does the same thing.
Because in order to really consider a poll valid, you have to look at who was called…how were the questions asked? How were the answers recorded? Was the respondent speaking truthfully? Did he know the various meanings of the words spoken?
Then you have to analyze the data…and in the end, there is little to no surprise, because the people doing the poll have their own bias and objectives…and intentionally or unintentionally cook the books.
There is no denying that Americans are paying more attention to Hollyweird than to the Bible, but its a giant leap to say that 24% are atheist, agnostic or a deist. But as the economy drops, people who normally don’t pray, will.
Conservative Voice on March 9, 2009 at 9:43 PM
You ought to know. Don’t the NAMBLA guys occupy your side of the spectrum?
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2009 at 9:43 PM
you need to understand, christians don’t need the republicans AT ALL…we didn’t need the romans to be christians for 300 years…and we sure as hell can get by without the republicans…we’re the one doing YOU the favors by being involved in politics…we could just as easily sit it out…because our kingdom is not here yet…
the republicans have abandoned conservatism…and I hope they keep losing…until they become conservative or are replaced by a real conservative party…they’re going the way of the whigs…and even this last election has apparently taught them nothing…
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 9:44 PM
The ones in the City, anyway.
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Was the rock named Peter?
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2009 at 9:45 PM
the ROCK is named Jesus…
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 9:46 PM
I find it interesting that that quote by Bush (is that W or his father, BTW?) is so reviled. The first part is perfectly fine. He’s just saying that he believes that Christianity is right. That’s perfectly fine.
The final bit is a bit of political platitude, and I can see why people don’t like it, but I don’t expect a politician at that level to make a political faux pas that could create huge international incidents. It could have been worded much better, though.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Thank you for saying this.
INC on March 9, 2009 at 9:49 PM
right4life: Cephas is Simon. ;)
Also, I’m curious. To the people who disagree with Bush’s statement above, do you believe that each person can make their own valid interpretation of Scripture?
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 9:50 PM
this is the basis of liberalism/socialism…the government plays god…it gives the politicians so much more POWER..and thats what people like obama are all about…
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 9:50 PM
sorry, Jesus is the Rock…and it was Peter’s statement that the church was to be built upon..not Peter..sorry. Check out the Rock cut without hands in Daniel….Jesus is THE ROCK..and there is no other…
it depends what you mean ‘valid’…does everyone have the option of interpreting scripture? sure..and they can twist it all they want…but christianity has a clearly stated set of beliefs…and if your interpretation doesn’t match that, like the mormons, then you shouldn’t call yourself christian…and if you do, you’re just deceiving yourself…
ultimately of course people have to accept or reject scripture, and what it says about Jesus for themselves…salvation is a personal thing, and you are held accountable for what you believe…
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 9:53 PM
right4life: Also, Catholics (at least) are taught that your civic duties are actual duties. That is, you’re not allowed to ‘sit out’ of elections. And due to the fact that there are certain nonnegotiable issues as liberal platform planks (abortion being the glaring one), a truly conservative candidate will receive the large part of the Catholic vote. This has been seen in elections at least since 2000, and in 2008 had the problem that McCain was not conservative enough to slash through Obama’s rhetoric.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 9:54 PM
They are, “in name only” Christians. Not true converts. Millions are sitting in churches each Sunday. You’ve got a whole boat load in the Democratic party.
I wouldn’t say that though, right4life. I was guilty of this. I made a god to suit myself. Thankfully, my Heavenly Father did not think that I was a waste, and when I trusted Him, He saved me. God is “not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9). Christians need to pray for these people that they repent, that is, turn from their sins, and put their faith in Jesus the same way you trust a parachute to save you.
apacalyps on March 9, 2009 at 9:54 PM
No. The ROCK was JESUS.
apacalyps on March 9, 2009 at 9:56 PM
you know we had no elections in the days of roman rule…and since many roman catholics like pelosi support abortion…well see what I said earlier about less than half of the people in church actually being christians…
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Yes, thank you. It is clearly all too true.
pannw on March 9, 2009 at 9:56 PM
right4life: I’m Catholic, if it’s not obvious. ;)
We can disagree on the interpretation of the Scripture on the founding of the Church, but I know _Protestant_ scholars have increasingly returned to the official Catholic interpretation of that passage.
I might also point out that in the Pauline Epistles, Peter is always referred to as Cephas.
What is your standard for judging someone’s interpretation of Scripture, if I may ask?
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Thanks for showing your ignorance.
aikidoka on March 9, 2009 at 10:00 PM
so? the point is is that Jesus is the rock of our salvation, not Peter. who, or what do you think the rock in daniel refers to??? hint: it sure ain’t peter..
do you trust in Peter for your salvation? is Peter the cornerstone of the church? not a chance…
simple, I just compare what someone says to what the bible says..its really not that hard…
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 10:02 PM
right4life: Bringing up Roman times is meaningless in this discussion. And naturally there are Catholics that support Abortion. Catholics have no protection against error. I fully agree with you that there are those who say, ‘Lord Lord,’ and yet don’t get into the Kingdom. We know this from Scripture. I don’t understand why you feel the need to bring this up in this discussion.
If you are trying to make the argument that the Catholic position is undermined because some Catholics don’t fully uphold that position, that is non sequitur at best and ad hominem at worst.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:02 PM
no the point goes back to what I said earlier…many who call themselves christian are not…in the protestant and catholic and orthodox faiths…
I brought up roman times earlier because you said christians NEED republicans…wasn’t that you???
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 10:03 PM
and sitting out a vote or refusing to vote is just as moral a position as voting…I don’t see not voting as a sin..sorry..
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Our own personal experience of (or struggle with) God is all we have to go on.
vimrich on March 9, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Ah, you are referring to Daniel? I was under the mistaken impression that you were referring to the New Testament passage which is often hotly debated between Protestants and Catholics.
If you could, would you kindly explain the following apparent contradiction to me? Genesis 1 directly states that it takes 6 days to create the heavens and the earth (specifically, day 3 is the creation of the earth, and day 4 is the creation of the heavenly bodies). Genesis 2:4 states “… in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth.”
I’d appreciate any light you could shine on this.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:06 PM
I certainly don’t want there to be fewer Christians, but if there are fewer people who don’t follow Jesus yet claim to be Christian, that’s a good thing.
Jesus called them “tares”, which was their word for weeds that look like wheat & grow among wheat, but they aren’t wheat.
jgapinoy on March 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM
It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.
- Mark Twain
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
- Issac Asimov
MB4 on March 9, 2009 at 10:09 PM
right4life: Yes, I believe that the Religious Right (which comprises almost all Christians, AFAIK) needs the Republicans more than the Republicans need the Religious Right… provided that the Republicans reform themselves into both a socially and fiscally conservative party. We both know there’s a snowball’s chance in Hell of any socially conservative policies making it out of a Democrat administration.
If you believe you have a right to sit out elections, believe that if you wish. But I do know we have a moral obligation to aid our fellow man, and this country has the wondeful system of representative government to give us a vehicle to do that. Certainly, it’s not the only method we have, but why not use all available methods?
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:10 PM
As an addendum to the above, I’ll note that helping your fellow man by cutting off entitlements to him is certainly one alternative that can be done. I’m certainly not stating that Christianity requires the creation of a statist government.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:12 PM
AP, does this seem like a God who is eager to punish the wicked?
jgapinoy on March 9, 2009 at 10:12 PM
AP, Jesus suffered more than any man ever has so that you wouldn’t have to.
jgapinoy on March 9, 2009 at 10:13 PM
jga: God is much more ‘the God who is eager to see people not punish themselves’.
A proper idea of sin is critical to the understanding of Scripture. One of the first casualties in modern society was, of course, this proper idea of sin.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:13 PM
AP, what you call “tortue” is justice–punishment for crimes committed against God & his creation. And it doesn’t last forever:
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/hell.htm
jgapinoy on March 9, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Ahem. Your children will be atheists who habla espanol!
VinyFoxy on March 9, 2009 at 10:14 PM
both actually, since the bible interprets the bible…Daniel speaks of a Rock which destroys the kingdoms of the world…fills the whole earth and is everlasting…do you think that is Peter??
Daniel also talks about the ‘Son of man’
who do you think that is??
I really doubt you do…you can look up the explanations quite easily…try google..
but if you think the bible has contradictions, how can you trust it to tell you the truth about Jesus, and your salvation??? hmmmm???
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 10:16 PM
jga: If someone chooses Hell of their own free will (and it must be), then God will not abrogate that choice.
If someone wants to torture themselves after faced with Truth, that’s their choice, is it not?
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:17 PM
I don’t know people used to get flayed alive during the crusades, frankly compared to that a crucifixion does’nt sound to bad.
Equanim1ty found on March 9, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Equanim1ty: As several have noted, the physical crucifixion of Christ was not nearly the worst He suffered in that day.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Your children will all be doughnuts!
Cheshire Cat on March 9, 2009 at 10:18 PM
sorry the verse didn’t copy….I need to proofread better
Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 10:19 PM
The more thumpers try and defend the indefensible, the more wacko they sound.
Off the scale wacko.
ronsfi on March 9, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Viva La RAZA!!
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 10:20 PM
remember me Vinny, when your ‘boyz’ take over….
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 10:20 PM
No one has loved anyone more than Jesus loves his Father, with whom he has been forever, but he was separated from him for our sake.
Jesus was rejected by his friends, his followers, the religious leaders, the civil leaders, & his Father, for our sake.
Jesus bore the sins of every person who ever lived & ever will live. For someone so impeccably holy, it must have been infinitely worse than Hell.
The pain we saw illustrated in The Passion Of The Christ only scratches the surface.
Yes, Jesus suffered more than any man.
jgapinoy on March 9, 2009 at 10:23 PM
since Reagan there is not a great deal of difference between the parties…I still don’t see why you think christiand NEED the republicans…or any other party…all we NEED is Jesus..
because Jesus told the CHURCH to help people not the government..as we have seen whenever the government tries to ‘take care’ of people, it tries to play god…
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 10:23 PM
right4life: Can you get me the citation? I don’t doubt that it refers to Christ, but if you can get it for my edification, I wouldn’t mind it. Unfortunately, I rather focused on those prophecies that dealt with the end times.
And I’m interested in knowing your method for dealing with apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. You appeal to authority on this? That is my general response (specifically, to the Magisterium).
John 1:1 “In the Beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
That tells me right there that there can be no inconsistencies in the Bible. This implies that any apparent contradiction is a deficiency of reason on the part of the reader, and I wondered how you deal with that. It’s a typical issue that everyone who reads the Bible must deal with.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:23 PM
What happened to all the people who belonged to civilisations that that had a polytheistic belief structure along with a fundementally different interpration of the afterlife, did they all go to hell for not believing in the one true God.
Equanim1ty found on March 9, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Oh, well…they called Columbus, Patrick Henry, Copernicus, Moses, & even Jesus wacko. I’m in good company.
“The gospel of foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God.”
jgapinoy on March 9, 2009 at 10:25 PM
The vicar says that Allahpundit’s a bishop in disguise
Who gives absolution night and day
Stuff and nonsense, don’t you know
He’s a maharajah from Bombay?
They say he has enormous feet
And that he tends to overeat
I’ve heard he’s fussy with his food
And eats his breakfast in the nude
Is he robust? Or very pale?
At least we know he’s male!
PercyB on March 9, 2009 at 10:27 PM
How do you know any of that is true, your going off a third (fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight……..) account of something that happened 2000 years ago.
Equanim1ty found on March 9, 2009 at 10:28 PM
That you imagine yourself in their company only adds to the creepiness factor.
ronsfi on March 9, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Ah, Daniel 7:13-14 clearly refers to Christ. I didn’t see a mention of a rock there, though… did I miss it?
And as I mentioned in the update, I vehemently dislike nanny states. If nothing else, participating in political discussion can help get taxes lowered so that we can afford to give more to charity. ;)
Obviously, taking my position to an absolute renders it amusing. All we need is faith in Christ, and the commensurate charity that comes from that faith.
My initial post about this was meant as advice to the Republicans, not the Christians. If they become truly conservative, they won’t have to worry about losing the Christians who vote or the Libertarians, as a truly conservative platform offers more to them than any Democrat platform. Because of that, the Republicans shouldn’t ‘court’ either party, for then they risk losing the other’s participation.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:29 PM
citation for what?
I tell you to look it up for yourself…and if you’re such a ‘christian’ why haven’t you already?
obviously some people spend their lives studying the bible, and know it better than I do…but I don’t take their word as the word of God…like you do with the Pope..
like everything else I don’t understand…I try looking it up, and figuring it out…how hard is this?
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 10:30 PM
I’ll speak as a Protestant.
R. C. Sproul in Knowing Scripture discusses the fact that during the Reformation the Catholic church objected to putting the Bible into the hands of the people because “unbridled spirits” would run amok with their own interpretation and distort Scripture. (He quotes the Council of Trent).
The Reformers believed in the perspicuity of Scripture and that any reader could understand what was necessary to know God and were committed to giving the Bible to the people. They carefully worked out biblical hermeneutics–hermeneutics being the science of interpretation. I’ll give you just a few.
The most important is Sacra scriptura sui interpres, Sacred Scripture is its own interpreter or the Analogy of Faith. A second is that Scripture is to be interpreted literally; use normal rules of context and speech. You must also consider the literary genre; is it poetry, history, etc. A third is the “grammatico-historical principle; use grammatical structure and historical analysis to understand the author’s intent.
INC on March 9, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Equanimity: Regarding pre-Christian peoples, they obviously cannot be held to the same standards as those in the Christian era, for precisely the reason that they are pre-Christian. There are theories, but the easy answer is, “We don’t know.”
Regarding the authenticity of the Bible, you do realize the originals were written _much_ closer to the actual time period in question than most histories of that time period? If you doubt the authenticity of the Bible, I hope you don’t read _any_ Roman histories, as those were written, at times, hundreds of years after the events they chronicle. To say they had primary source issues would be oversimplifying the matter.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:33 PM
the Rock cut without hands…haven’t you read daniel??
daniel 2:
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 10:34 PM
There are excellent reasons to view the New Testament as an accurate historical document. (See John Warwick Montgomery’s History, Law and Christianity and F. F. Bruce’s The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?)
Bruce’s book is available online for reading.
INC on March 9, 2009 at 10:34 PM
right4life: The citation is for the rock segment you say is in Daniel. I saw the other one, and thank you for that.
I have looked up the official interpretation for that seeming inconsistency; thank you for the advice.
I guess my point is that you suggested I consult a competent authority on the subject. I generally agree with that approach. We may perhaps disagree on what constitutes a competent authority.
And we would have to sit down and discuss the passage I thought you were referring to earlier (Mat 16:16-19) to go over the authority of the Church.
INC: If the Reformation meant to put the Bible in the hands of the people, particularly of the time, I must confess I have some concerns about their hermeneutic. What you describe can only readily be done by someone versed in literary analysis. It would of course also help to understand Greek.
Therefore, I’m a little confused in its means to its end.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:44 PM
right4life: Yes, I have read Daniel. As I said, I read mainly the visions that seemed to parallel Revelation, and that one is generally interpreted to have already taken place. Pretty clearly, the Rock is either Christ or His Church (with the difference being rather semantic).
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:47 PM
My view is that religious belief and a belief in the afterlife in particular is just a natural human reaction to an inability to comprehend the finality of death. It is beyond the capacity of the vast majority of human beings myself included to comprehend complete and utter non-existance and this is why different civilisations that have risen and fallen throughout history have invented there own set of religious beliefs be they mono or polythiestic.
Equanim1ty found on March 9, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Equanimity: In the Pagan cases, this is more or less true. What’s interesting is that the Pagans knew something was wrong, but not how to fix it. (I say this because almost every Pagan religion has a fall from grace _and_ a flood narrative.) As Chesterton points out, incomprehension of sin is a peculiarly modern phenomenon.
That is why the Gospel is truly evangelion; good news. It explains how to be redeemed.
What makes the 3 Great Monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) different from the polytheisms is the historical nature of their claim. They claim that God told them in defined history the revelation of His Being. This, incidentally, is exactly what reason will tell you must happen if we are to apprehend something that is beyond us.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Also, Equanimity: C.S. Lewis points out that there is nothing to point towards linking a belief in some great Being, and that Being in charge of an Afterlife.
His book The Problem of Pain is incredibly useful to understand this.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 10:55 PM
While knowing the original languages certainly helps, most people who do some reading, thinking and are careful (realizing their linguistic limitations) will not readily go astray.
The basic goal of Bible study is to know God and live a life pleasing to Him.
I’ve approached it and taught it through three basic steps of observation, interpretation and application, which are commonly categorized as inductive Bible study. (The word inductive is used in the usual sense, to understand the specifics in order to come to a conclusion).
Some excellent books on this are Howard Hendricks’ Living By the Book and Kay Arthur’s How to Study Your Bible.
INC on March 9, 2009 at 11:03 PM
So you do believe in God but you just don’t want Him stopping by for dinner?
Deanna on March 9, 2009 at 11:06 PM
INC: Those seem like good ideas on the surface. Do you think those principles are generally followed by Protestants?
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 11:09 PM
I must say, I find it interesting that the Protestants and other assorted Christians (sorry, right4life, if I don’t know your denomination) are engaging me on some topics, but the atheists are not.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 11:11 PM
True. To be news, it should be useful–and ideally, factual.
So if I write a story about how I saved the world and was the coolest guy ever, and they excavate my house in 2,000 years, that will make my story true?
I feel your pain, Brother!
I’ll bite. You show me how “atheist, agnostic, liberal and dogmatic” even begin to categorize the richness of human religious experience, and I’ll try to find a way to categorize a less-that-six-point IQ difference as significant. It’s interesting that the rationality of beliefs wasn’t measured–surely the author didn’t make any a priori assumptions?
Actually, it took about 400 years for Christianity to lose touch with its Semitic origins and start interpreting allegory as history. Too bad those extra five IQ points didn’t help you pick up on that.
This is a thread about religion, not government school teachers.
Yes, it would. Just for chuckles, what improvements would you suggest?
That started when the Democrats took Congress and wouldn’t fix Fannie and Freddy like Bush suggested? Yeah, good call.
I’d look up Aramaic Primacy first. By the way, that book would be a “lexicon,” not a dictionary.
I wasn’t aware that any particular religion followed rules set by Benjamin Franklin…?
Well, all 3.2 billion of them agree that there is a Supreme Being. They just differ on interpretation, which is a purely cultural artifact of finite minds attempting to process the infinite.
Self-identification as a Christian does not satisfy the qualifications to be a Christian. N.B.: The Council of Nicea.
You forgot d) the higher power to which human attributes such as “caring,” “not caring,” “altruism” and “antagonism” are irrelevant.
“Peter was not the rock” is an illogical statement. Both “Peter” and “Cephas” mean “rock.” If you wish to say that Simon bar Jonah was not the subject of a statement in the Book of Daniel, fine–just clarify.
Thus proving the shocking hypothesis that people don’t understand books they don’t study.
The Word (which is a poor translation of “Logos”) is the Christ, not the Bible. The Bible did not pre-exist Creation.
q2600 on March 9, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Regarding a belief in an afterlife, your statement may be true. Note, however, that even you distinguish this from “religious belief,” which is separate but often related.
q2600 on March 9, 2009 at 11:18 PM
This thread amply demonstrates why the Religious Right, and the Fiscal Con / Libertarian or Social Moderate can not coexist for long in the same political party.
Lots of lecturing going on… lots of people telling each other they don’t know what they are talking about… lots of people putting their BELIEF out as FACT.
I’m a Fical Con/ Social Moderate… and I don’t want ANYONE, Liberal or Christian Social Conservative telling me how to act, or what to beleive.
And I ESPECIALY don’t want them using the power of the Government to force their beliefs, or lifestyle, on me.
Romeo13 on March 9, 2009 at 11:25 PM
I think that in the good, solid churches they are and they cross denominations. I’ve lived in the South, the Chicago area and in the Northeast.
It’s part of the weakness of many Protestant churches today that careful Bible study is not taught (and in some liberal churches it’s not even believed). Without God’s Word people’s lives are getting tossed to and fro.
INC on March 9, 2009 at 11:26 PM
You know, all law legislates morality.
Do you believe murder is wrong? Theft? False witness?
INC on March 9, 2009 at 11:27 PM
q2600: I perfectly agree that Word is a poor translation of Logos, which I believe is more generally translated as Reason. What this does say, though, is that God (and by extension all that He creates) operates through Logical rules, as Logos IS God.
Since the first rule of logic is that something cannot both be and not be, that tells me that the internal consistency of the Bible is maintained.
I’m sorry if I short-circuited the analysis.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 11:30 PM
INC: My main concern is with the logic of the position of the Reformation. Granted that there is one God, and that God is the creator of all (which I feel confident in assuming is a base of all Christianity?), there is only one truth or reality: what God did (or willed, or what have you). If a Church is built by God to safeguard that truth, there only needs be one. (I am not here claiming that the Catholic Church is that one Church.)
However, even a brief survey of Protestant denominations reveals mutually contradictory theology among them. My concern is to how to tell the right one (if, indeed, any of them are right) from the wrong ones? What is the standard that they must all be judged by?
Romeo: I have a question for you. If you had to vote between someone who was socially moderate, but fiscally liberal, or someone who was socially conservative or liberal but fiscally conservative, who would you vote for?
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Scott, one way to look at it is a word picture I read in one of Francis Schaeffer’s books. There are circles that define orthodox Christianity within which conservative Protestants may agree or disagree. Outside those circles we agree you’re over the edge.
INC on March 9, 2009 at 11:41 PM
INC: Who is ‘we’, and how was that defined? Protestants are anything but monolithic.
I find it interesting that this parallels the Magisterium’s grouping of theological issues.
Scott H on March 9, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Scott,
Scott, Good question.
I would probably use the five Solas of the Reformation to provide definition:
Sola Scriptura – Scripture Alone
Solus Christus – Christ Alone
Sola Gratia – Grace Alone
Sola Fide – Faith Alone
Soli Deo Gloria – The Glory of God Alone
INC on March 9, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Sorry, it’s getting late. That may have been unclear. That’s my definition I gave you. I can’t remember in which book Schaeffer discussed it and exactly what he said. I grabbed one off the shelf I thought it was in, but I didn’t see it.
INC on March 10, 2009 at 12:02 AM
But if you combine them, they aren’t alone any more, are they?
unclesmrgol on March 10, 2009 at 12:06 AM
You have a passion for the lost, jgapinoy. I am so impressed! Well, done! One thing though. I read the link you submiited above, and uh, there is a lot of false information in there about hell. Don’t let anybody manipulate you into believing something other than what the Scriptures really say, okay. Hell is forever and ever! All who enter hell – abandon all hope! Just look how Jesus Christ warns of the eternity and permanence of hell:
“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
worm dieth not. Jesus spoke often warning of hell, and it was so important He warned, “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched,” twice more in verses 45 thru 48. The underlying worm indicates never-ending disintergration and the unquenchable fire indicates eternal suffering, however they may be implemented. Jesus says in Matthew 25:41: “…Depart from me, ye cursed, into EVERLASTING fire,…”
I could go on and on and on with Scripture to support that hell is forever. in fact, it was Christ who set forth this doctrine most emphatically of all (see Matthew 5:29-30; 10:28; 13:41-42,50; 18:8-9; 23:33). Those who are offended by the idea of eternal hellfire as the abode of the lost, they should remember that Christ so loved them that He himself suffered the worst pangs of hell when He died for them on the cross, and they have thus far spurned his infinite love.
apacalyps on March 10, 2009 at 12:09 AM
:-)
They each stand alone, but in unity!
INC on March 10, 2009 at 12:09 AM
(d) doesn’t exist. The human attribute “caring” either exists or doesn’t exist in the posited “higher power”.
unclesmrgol on March 10, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Correcting myself. Thank you.
apacalyps on March 10, 2009 at 12:11 AM
But Peter means “rock”. And if Jesus did it, it wasn’t spontaneous. It was deliberate.
unclesmrgol on March 10, 2009 at 12:14 AM
No, I didn’t say that well. I said it was late.
INC on March 10, 2009 at 12:14 AM
So we have a Holy Qinity?
unclesmrgol on March 10, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Or, rather, a Holy Quinity?
unclesmrgol on March 10, 2009 at 12:17 AM
We are way off topic anyway. This is an angels and pins thing.
unclesmrgol on March 10, 2009 at 12:18 AM
G’night. Talk again later when my brain is working!
INC on March 10, 2009 at 12:33 AM
The Liddel and Scott translation is “that by which the inner thought is expressed”. So, by that phrase, “Word” is certainly a good and correct translation. In the New Testament, that phrase translates to “Jesus” — the act of God which expressed his thought.
unclesmrgol on March 10, 2009 at 12:44 AM
One last thing:
Scott,
In case you check in later, I wanted to leave you with a last quick overview of inductive Bible study I mentioned above. Because this is quick it will be superficial, but I wanted you to see some of the process.
Observation comes first. I read a book or epistle first to get an overview of the book and ask: Who? (Ex.: Who wrote this book? To Whom was it written?) What? (What are the main people, places, events, ideas?) When? (When did the events occur?) Where? (Where did the events occur?) Why? (Why did the author write this?) and How? (How is God’s character and care revealed?) Those are examples of questions, and the idea is to thoroughly explore any 5 W’s and H’s and answer them from the text itself. You’d be amazed at what you learn when you discipline yourself to read and observe. It’s important to do this to the book in its entirety (or to large section breaks if the book is quite long) to get the big overall picture and so you can put the particulars into context. That’s another safeguard in careful interpretation. You can then go into more detail in overviewing and observing what’s in a chapter and then in paragraph breaks within a chapter.
Interpretation is next (this is Hendricks’ alliteration following and in it you can see some of the hermeneutical principles I mentioned above). You ask Content? (This is a review of observation). Context? (What is the context of the book: literary, historical, cultural, geographic, theological) Comparison? (What do we learn in making a comparison of this book with the rest of the author’s writings, the Old or New Testament in which it resides, and with all of Scripture?) Culture? (What should we know about the culture in which the book was written?) Consultation? (What do we learn in consultation with scholars?)
Application is last. This is my alliteration I came up with as a help to remember. I ask Person? (What do I learn about God? How am I to respond? What do I learn about myself or others? How am I to respond?) Purpose? (What purpose of God for me is revealed?) Problem? (What problem of mine is discussed?) Priority? (What priority does this make on my life?) Power? (How do I rely on God’s power to change my life?) Plan? (What is God’s plan for me to work out this change?) Partner? (How do I rely on other Christians as my partner in growth and change?)
Obviously you can’t answer every question every time, but these are designed as examples and helps.
INC on March 10, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Scott H, you were very busy tonight and may God bless you for it. All well said.
Elisa on March 10, 2009 at 1:02 AM
“but christianity has a clearly stated set of beliefs”
“simple, I just compare what someone says to what the bible says”
“the bible interprets the bible”
right4life on March 9, 2009 at 9:53 PM at 10:02PM, etc
Catholics also believe in using the Bible to interpret the Bible. (but not alone). Because if you use passage A and passage B to interpret passage C, but you are incorrectly interpreting passage A, then you will incorrectly interpret passage C.
There is not way any Christian can interpret scripture without a tradition. Either the Catholic/Orthodox use of Sacred Tradition (what we believe is the teachings of the Apostles handed down) or the Protestant/non-denominational tradition. Using various hermeneutics that Catholics also use, as well as many Protestants who come up with different interpretations amongst themselves, using the same hermeneutic methods.
The only person who wouldn’t be using a tradition to interpret Scripture is a baby raised alone on a deserted island with no other books than a Bible. Everyone has a parent, friend, teacher, minister, pastor, speaker, books, footnotes, etc. that teaches them what the Bible is saying and how to interpret it. (Just like someone or some book taught INC)
Sola Scriptura/Scripture alone is not in the Bible. It is part of the Protestant tradition.
Elisa on March 10, 2009 at 1:05 AM
St. Paul tells us to “hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement (logos) or by a letter of ours (epistolos).” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Sacred Scripture sprang from Sacred Tradition. They are both truth from the Holy Spirit, so they cannot contradict each other.
The Old Testament sprang from Jewish Sacred oral Tradition before Christ and the New Testament sprang from Sacred Christian Tradition, the “Teachings of the Apostles” handed down.
No where in Scripture or in early Christian writings does it say that this oral Tradition ended or that it somehow became written Scripture alone as the sole authority.
Elisa on March 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »