Are Christians "willfully ignorant"?

[Lotan]

"Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." 1 Co. 15:58

Is there any difference between the Christian doctrine of "steadfastness" and "willfull ignorance"?

[Lotan]

Christianity requires, at least to some extent, a belief in things for which there is no clear evidence outside of the bible. It also requires, to some extent, a belief that the bible is basically true. When an 'apparent' contradiction arises between the Bible and real life experience, the believer can process the event in several ways. They can rationalize, or compartmentalize, or even deny the event. Some Christians rely on the doctrine of "steadfastness" to resolve these issues. This doctrine is summed up nicely as...

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding" Proverbs 3:5

There are plenty of examples of this sort of thinking (especially among creationists). Here's one from Fred's Bible Talk...

"Hence, the way in which a person perceives the evidence depends upon the authority he willingly allows to inform his thinking. Will it be the infallible revelation of God's Holy Bible, or the opinions of fallible, secular individuals who are hostile against God before they conclude anything concerning scientific evidence?"

Essentially, Fred is making a circular argument that the Bible is the ultimate authority on everything. But is "God's Holy Bible" really that great? You bet!

"We Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God and the eternal source of truth we live by. How do we know the Bible is the Word of God? Can we actually prove that the Bible is truly the Word of God? The answer is yes.

In my experience, there is no book that is criticized and attacked more than the Bible. Many intelligent scholars have written books that attempt to discredit the authority of the Bible. This is one of Satan's goals: to get man to doubt the Word of God."
...from Leadership U.

So God tells us that the Bible is His Word. We know that because it's in the Word of God. We don't have to even trust our own senses, because of Satan's monkey business.

Dr. Adrian Rogers offers this advice on how to remain "steadfast"...

"First, we need to be praying.
Second, we need to be winning souls.
Third, we need to be encouraging our Christian friends and family to get in the Word of God and help them understand its truths about the end times.
Fourth, we need to keep our focus firm on the Second Coming of our Lord and not get dismayed by the "doom and gloom" tales that are being preached.
Lastly, we need to keep our hope alive that God is sovereign and has a good plan for His children."

So never mind those "doom and gloom" tales that are being preached. Keep burning those fossil fuels and procreate like wild rabbits 'cause Jesus will save the day.

I guess it could be argued that the inability of some Christians to accept evidence that is contrary to their understanding of the bible cannot be called “willfull” because they are incapable of making the distinction between reality and their perception of it.

[Scrotum]

Is there any difference between the Christian doctrine of "steadfastness" and "willfull ignorance"?

I think everyone is aware of my position on this, but i´ll try to join the fun without to many curses

First we have the semantics, which obviously makes a big difference between steadfastness and "willfull ignorance". Of course, Christianity demands blind obediance, even if what is stated is not true. We can use several examples in the Bible (which nowdays, have been "re-interpreted").


According to the Bible, the Earth, as example, is Flat. This, for some reason, would not be accepted by Christians if asked today, but this does not change point, does it. We also would have simple problems with "Adam & Eve" populating the world etcetera.


But then again, we have people like Harvey, whom uses skilled rhetoric to try to prove something that does not have any proof for existence. I admire his dedication to this, but in all seriousness. How come we do not believe in Pink Flying elephants named George?

Well, thats because there is no evidence for this. So how come Christians, and people like Harvey, insist on a God, when there is more evidence for a pink elephant named George, why is this?

I assume its fear.
In general, religious people have a fear of Death and responsibility, and if you would have a God, this would disappear. No matter if its a illusion or not, they do not care, as long as they have their imaginary pillow.



The problem is of course, when they force the next generation into this ignorance, and destroy their possibility of intelligence and evolution.

[melikio]

First we have the semantics, which obviously makes a big difference between steadfastness and "willfull ignorance". Of course, Christianity demands blind obediance, even if what is stated is not true. We can use several examples in the Bible (which nowdays, have been "re-interpreted").

No, not blind obdedience, but a certain adherence to those things which one may believe are true. Not all Christians believe the exact same things, and they likely cannot as human beings.

There is a thread discussing just what "Christianity" is, and I think we would have to agree that defining it is fairly complex. But I can assure you that not ALL "Christians" are living by "blind" faith, anymore than some materislistic atheists (if it isn't "matter", it's not there) live by blind science; I've met MANY secularly-oriented people who understand less of the "science" which makes the world real to them, than most Christians. As a matter of fact, many "Christians" know science to a level which rivals anyone else on the planet.

According to the Bible, the Earth, as example, is Flat. This, for some reason, would not be accepted by Christians if asked today, but this does not change point, does it. We also would have simple problems with "Adam & Eve" populating the world etcetera.

Yeah, there are things like that which tell me to NOT take all of the Bible "literally"; not to say that something taught in a symbolic manner is useless.

But then again, we have people like Harvey, whom uses skilled rhetoric to try to prove something that does not have any proof for existence. I admire his dedication to this, but in all seriousness. How come we do not believe in Pink Flying elephants named George?

I see your point. There is a time/place where what is most "practical" or what people can truly relate to, matters more than what people SAY is/isn't true. I believe Jesus made that point, when He somewhat short-circuited the religious leaders of his day; He basically made LOVE more important than religion itself.

Well, thats because there is no evidence for this. So how come Christians, and people like Harvey, insist on a God, when there is more evidence for a pink elephant named George, why is this?

Because people (human beings, at least some of us) are more than the sum of the "logical" thoughts we possess or have mastery over. Some people (for better or worse), need more than the point-blank facts of life; they need to also understand how they really fit into a massive and sometimes cold reality, on a level which makes sense to THEM... personally. I don't make a point of reading science books for fun (I work on hi-tech stuff), but I've never seen one book of facts, that can help a person at the levels where we feel, wonder, trust, hope or dream.

For example, there are people who conceive children, feed them, keep them alive...etc., then there are good and nuturing parents who give the human beings in their care all they need to literally live life AND to make the lives of those around them even better.

I really don't know too many Christians who take the entire Bible literally, I know of more who TALK as if it should be taken literally (do as I say, not as I do). They are often misguided or worse (big fat hypocrites).

I assume its fear.
In general, religious people have a fear of Death and responsibility, and if you would have a God, this would disappear. No matter if its a illusion or not, they do not care, as long as they have their imaginary pillow.

You don't have to assume that it's "fear". It would take the biggest fool of phoney in the world to say they do not fear anything. Sometimes fear is the primary motivator in people (hatred running closely with it). It is natural and very troubling to people to experience fear.

When I my very close friend had cancer a couple of years back, and I went of the "scientific" aspects with him, that was not ALL that he needed to make it through the problem. It was as obvious as the hideously un-healing wound on his body. The doctors (doing a great job indeed), related the "fact" of life/death to my friend; they could not and did not know what my friends was feeling at the deepest levels (all his fears, hopes, dreams, desires... being strummed out of the blue, like a loud, dissonant guitar chord in a rock band). Reality and the facts of it, were not all that he needed, and it was so evident that I will NEVER forget it. At that point, a simple "hug" and a few "tears" did more than the knowledge we possesed combined. Human beings (despite what they know or believe they know), need something more than knowledge itself and always will.

The problem is of course, when they force the next generation into this ignorance, and destroy their possibility of intelligence and evolution.

ALL human beings suffer from some ignorance; some more than others. Still, I'm not anti-religion, because it is exactly what some people need and the only thing that many have access to. We may not personally agree with certain religious views/doctrines (or at all), but the type of thing which religion does for one who really looks into it, ultimately becomes a thing of substance within the person subjecting themselves to it.

I've met MANY atheists who were "taught" to NOT believe; by parents, teachers or whatever. Not all had good reasons to not believe in or oppose the existence of a god. I could ALWAYS relate to that, because I was taught to respect the right of others to believe as they would; not to pursue any forced or coerced conversion to what I personally believed.

Unfortunately, there are people on ALL sides of various thoughts/beliefs, who are more interested in being "RIGHT" than they are in being of "practical" benefit to their fellow human beings. I don't mean to be harsh (not at all), but it is that kind of person who can take near "anything" (from a material object, to a system of thought), and suck the humaness out of others (like an anti-humanist vampire). I've seen them wearing the "Christian" label, and I've encountered them as "atheists".

Ignorance (of truth) and knowledge (of what exists) are not total answer unto themselves; the solutions themselves (for mankind) have a lot more to do how that "knowlege" (or "ignorance") is handled by individuals who possess or experience either.

I'll take a kind and mentally "balanced" person (any day) over a brilliant, know-it-all, a__hole.
(Anyone who perhaps had that certain boss or employer I'm thinking of, knows what I'm getting at.)

-Mel-

[harvey1]

But then again, we have people like Harvey, whom uses skilled rhetoric to try to prove something that does not have any proof for existence. I admire his dedication to this, but in all seriousness. How come we do not believe in Pink Flying elephants named George? Well, thats because there is no evidence for this. So how come Christians, and people like Harvey, insist on a God, when there is more evidence for a pink elephant named George, why is this?

It's just not the case Scrot. Go back to the beginning and if you think your atheism through you'll see it is not a feasible conception of the world. If we consider the situation from a non-theistic perspective, there shouldn't be anything at all (no spacetime, no matter, no energy). However, there is, and quite a lot of it.

What you have to do is understand what a cellular automata is. It is an algorithm that has selection rules which can evolve over time. In order to produce an atheistic world you would need some kind of cellular automata algorithm that the world works by in order to e-v-e-n-t-u-a-l-l-y bring about the universe that we see. Yet, hundreds of thousands of them have been constructed, perhaps a million or more, and nothing comes close to showing the kind of behavior necessary to produce the kind of sophisticated behavior that we see in our universe (or could have produced our universe). This shows that it is basically impossible to have an atheistic world given the sheer amount of other cellular automata algorithms the Universe could have exhibited but didn't. Had it had exhibited those other algorithms the Universe would have done exactly what these algorithms do: much ado about nothing.

What all you guys need to do is go back to the drawing board and figure out where you went wrong in your reasoning process. All of these atheistic conceptions are just wrong. I know you don't like to hear it, but it's wrong. Now, if your atheism is caused by some kind of psychological need (e.g., a hidden desire to separate yourself from your parents a struggle that is still on-going, or perhaps a puppy that was run over at 5 years of age), then I can understand. But, don't make it an intellectual argument. This is a personal issue which needs to be addressed outside of a forum such as this.

[Scrotum]

It's just not the case Scrot. Go back to the beginning and if you think your atheism through you'll see it is not a feasible conception of the world. If we consider the situation from a non-theistic perspective, there shouldn't be anything at all (no spacetime, no matter, no energy). However, there is, and quite a lot of it.

I dont understand Harvey, are you claiming the Universe must have had a beginning ?

But I am game, you may even start a thread to Qustion my, or others "atheism", and i will "defend" myself in the best way i can. I invite you to question my position.

What you have to do is understand what a cellular automata is.

You seem to claim that what we see today was planned. And that everything in existence is here for a purpose (created), thats not a very neutral way to start an argument.

What all you guys need to do is go back to the drawing board and figure out where you went wrong in your reasoning process. All of these atheistic conceptions are just wrong.

Like i said, i am game, Question my "faith" if you wish.

Now, if your atheism is caused by some kind of psychological need (e.g., a hidden desire to separate yourself from your parents a struggle that is still on-going, or perhaps a puppy that was run over at 5 years of age), then I can understand

Freudian ad hominem, how mature.

But, don't make it an intellectual argument. This is a personal issue which needs to be addressed outside of a forum such as this.

Sorry Harvey, intellectual arguments is the only think us atheist have. Like i said, i am game, open thread if you wish, i will let you attack any belief i have, and as long as you use logic and common sense, i will participate.


[/quote]

[harvey1]

Unfortunately, there are people on ALL sides of various thoughts/beliefs, who are more interested in being "RIGHT" than they are in being of "practical" benefit to their fellow human beings. I don't mean to be harsh (not at all), but it is that kind of person who can take near "anything" (from a material object, to a system of thought), and suck the humaness out of others (like an anti-humanist vampire). I've seen them wearing the "Christian" label, and I've encountered them as "atheists".

As yet another example as to how theists disagree openly, but atheists on this forum being largely unable to do so, I would like to voice my strong disagreement with you on this issue.

Human beings can certainly be rational creatures, but we can also certainly be irrational in behavior and thought. We don't need to look very far at some of the horrible, irrational things that people do.

It is our duty as not only as human beings, but as Christians, not only to walk the walk, but to show why we walk that walk. Why do we insist on there being a God. If our "reasons" are no more than pleas for help, then we are in the same group that acts, behaves, and thinks irrational. We must have justified reasons for our beliefs, otherwise we are subject to repeating the irrational and most horrendous acts of history.

[harvey1]

I dont understand Harvey, are you claiming the Universe must have had a beginning?

Not a beginning in the temporal sense. The universe's reason for its behavior must be initiated by some set of axioms.

But I am game, you may even start a thread to Qustion my, or others "atheism", and i will "defend" myself in the best way i can. I invite you to question my position.

Let's start with this thread.

You seem to claim that what we see today was planned. And that everything in existence is here for a purpose (created), thats not a very neutral way to start an argument.

That's not my claim. Actually, it's the opposite. I want you to account for structure that arises from a simple set of apparently likely conditions.

[Scrotum]

Not a beginning in the temporal sense. The universe's reason for its behavior must be initiated by some set of axioms.

It must be initiated by some set of axioms? And what the heck do you base THAT on? Kent Hovind?

That's not my claim. Actually, it's the opposite. I want you to account for structure that arises from a simple set of apparently likely conditions.

Hold on, you want ME, to explain the REASONS for the Universe, when i have given no basis for this?

You clearly base Humans as the AIM for the Universe, it does not work like that Harvey. First off, we are not the end compound, and to claim that, well, i remember a good simile regarding making a hole-in-one......

[harvey1]

Scrot, let's have this discussion here. It seems you and Grumpy are addressing very similar issues, and this is not the place to have that discussion.