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]

And I've never heard of the Christian doctrine of "steadfastness", but I have been taught that Christians are encouraged to live by faith, not merely what they know.

Yes, and all Christians are encouraged to live by faith, in spite of what they know. (Proverbs 3:5)

The reality is that different things are important or significant to different people; and they don't all learn/know the same things.

People are entitled to their opinions, they're not entitled to their own facts. This is especially true when their beliefs result in behaviors that have a negative effect on their neighbors. We've been down this road before.

So yeah, some "people" are likely willfull in their ignorance (or seemingly so), but certainly not ALL people of any group under a "label" (i.e. "Christians") must be necessarily relegated to such.

This is true of any observation that one could make about Christianity. Obviously not everyone is the same. That said, Christians are, in general, encouraged to be willfully ignorant or to rationalize anything that disagrees with their faith. The labels 'conservative' and 'liberal' would seem to be an indicator of the relative degree to which individual groups are encouraged to do both.

[melikio]

And I've never heard of the Christian doctrine of "steadfastness", but I have been taught that Christians are encouraged to live by faith, not merely what they know.

Yes, and all Christians are encouraged to live by faith, in spite of what they know. (Proverbs 3:5)

Lotan, if you push the idea/concept that ALL Christian people cannot think for themselves or question even your literal interpretations of Scripture, then you set yourself up for being as bigoted as some "Christians" tend to be (atheist-fundamentailst... or something like that).

The reality is that different things are important or significant to different people; and they don't all learn/know the same things.

People are entitled to their opinions, they're not entitled to their own facts. This is especially true when their beliefs result in behaviors that have a negative effect on their neighbors. We've been down this road before.

People (even you and other atheists) have no particular monopoly upon open-mindedness or original thinking. You can force yourself to believe that "Christians" aren't capable of a variety of vantage points, but by embracing such dogma, you ignore some obvious truth.

This "road" (you've traveled part of with me) leads to a balanced view of that which actually exists (IMHO). All Christians are no more closed-minded, biblical-literalists-bigots, anymore than all atheists are intransigent, Christian-oppressing, God-haters.

I admit, that can't understand fully why you think exactly what you do, but I don't villify you or others for it (I try not to, anyway). I know there are good, yet very personal reasons why people embrace the mindsets which they do. I merely try to encourage something better than making all of those who think differently than myself, an "enemy". I always remember that people are simply DIFFERENT (Christian or not).

So yeah, some "people" are likely willfull in their ignorance (or seemingly so), but certainly not ALL people of any group under a "label" (i.e. "Christians") must be necessarily relegated to such.

This is true of any observation that one could make about Christianity. Obviously not everyone is the same. That said, Christians are, in general, encouraged to be willfully ignorant or to rationalize anything that disagrees with their faith. The labels 'conservative' and 'liberal' would seem to be an indicator of the relative degree to which individual groups are encouraged to do both.

You seem like a smart guy to me; so why do you underestimate the power of reality itself, to create the shades of meaning and gradations of "faith", which are so very obvious in this reality?

I know a LOT of people who understand well enough, that all "Christians" are not equal to as much of the "trouble" which is so often claimed (or as some "prefer" to imagine). Christians aren't necessarily what your mind/perceptions have perhaps cut them out to be.

At a point in time where I lost the majority of my "Christian" faith, I had all the motivation I needed to reject it by closing my mind to it (or just shuting it out). To some degree, that did happen, but I still understand what it is to have faith... yet allow others (especially those who insist LOUDLY) their un/disbelief.

To sum it up; there are many Christians who are ready and willing to let atheists, agnostics, gays ...etc., be who they are. Perhaps the only problem is that those Christians DO LOVE even those people who aren't "believers"; I see no problem with that, though I'm sure someone might.

I'm a believer that God does what He will inside of people; primarily through love. And based upon many observations and personal experiences... people's hearts/minds over a period of time (in this real world) are hardly predicatble and often unfathomable. Don't make the mistake that I've seen MANY atheists and believers make, and push people into one giant category you created, merely because that "partition" fits so nicely into the reality you know. Be careful.

-Mel-

[Lotan]

Lotan, if you push the idea/concept that ALL Christian people cannot think for themselves or question even your literal interpretations of Scripture, then you set yourself up for being as bigoted as some "Christians" tend to be (atheist-fundamentailst... or something like that).

What a relief that I haven't done that, then. Why don't you object to what I actually did say, instead of making this @#$% up? I've already said that "Obviously not everyone is the same". Let me repeat the statement that you are objecting to so that I can make my meaning more clear...

"...all Christians are encouraged to live by faith, in spite of what they know."

If one claims to believe Proverbs 3:5 (and others, coupled with 2Tim. 3:16) then this is the logical conclusion. Yes, some people manage to interpret these texts 'liberally', but so what? Plenty do not.

People (even you and other atheists) have no particular monopoly upon open-mindedness or original thinking. You can force yourself to believe that "Christians" aren't capable of a variety of vantage points, but by embracing such dogma, you ignore some obvious truth.

More @#$%. Where have I said any of this? Why don't you stop trying to mischaracterize me and answer what I've actually written instead of attacking this strawman fantasy version of me that you've created? It's insulting.

All Christians are no more closed-minded, biblical-literalists-bigots, anymore than all atheists are intransigent, Christian-oppressing, God-haters.

I think I know that melikio, I married one. What part of "Obviously not everyone is the same" don't you understand?

I admit, that can't understand fully why you think exactly what you do, but I don't villify you or others for it (I try not to, anyway).

Another pointless polemic. It might have been relevant if I had 'vilified' someone for their beliefs, but I haven't!

I merely try to encourage something better than making all of those who think differently than myself, an "enemy".

Ah, yet one more thing that I haven't done, and so, won't have to answer for.

I always remember that people are simply DIFFERENT (Christian or not).

Hey, me too..........so what?

You seem like a smart guy to me; so why do you underestimate the power of reality itself, to create the shades of meaning and gradations of "faith", which are so very obvious in this reality?

That would be an interesting topic. I think that the key concept there is "gradations of faith". Even I might have enough 'faith' to spend a dollar on a lottery ticket on my birthday. Someone else might have enough 'faith' to bash her children's skulls in with a rock because she thinks God wants to test that 'faith'. Did I mention that "Obviously not everyone is the same"?

I know a LOT of people who understand well enough, that all "Christians" are not equal to as much of the "trouble" which is so often claimed (or as some "prefer" to imagine). Christians aren't necessarily what your mind/perceptions have perhaps cut them out to be.

You can stop banging that drum anytime now 'cause you're really giving me a headache. (Hey, do you remember when I said "Obviously not everyone is the same"!)

To sum it up; there are many Christians who are ready and willing to let atheists, agnostics, gays ...etc., be who they are.

I really don't understand why you think that I don't know this already. There are plenty of Christians who are NOT willing to let "atheists, agnostics, gays ...etc., be who they are" too, but I don't need to tell you that either.

Don't make the mistake that I've seen MANY atheists and believers make, and push people into one giant category you created, merely because that "partition" fits so nicely into the reality you know. Be careful.

Do you mean that Christianity isn't a one-size-fits-all, monolithic, narrow world-view populated by mindless, drooling clones? I'll try to remember that.

Since I've spent the entire thread answering your off-topic objections I thought it might be nice if I shared an example that actually had something to do with the promotion of "willfull ignorance". You may have read this somewhere already; arch Creationist Ken Ham sinks his rhetorical fangs into impressionable little school children, some "as young as 5"...

"With puppets and cartoons, he was showing them how to reject geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology as a sinister tangle of lies."

The article can be found here. Let me know if you approve of Mr. Ham's lesson. Obviously a lot of parents do.

[melikio]

“Sometimes people will answer, ‘No, but you weren’t there either,’ ” Ham told them. “Then you say, ‘No, I wasn’t, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world’ ”
He waved his Bible in the air.

I don't agree with indoctrinating people that way. But I don't worry, because many people learn to THINK for themselves; reality is full of stimuli which can OPEN people's minds.

Not that all that is out here is "good" or "beneficial", but that people do tend to think for themselves; that is why I emphasized earlier that "different" is an important aspect of what's being talked about.

Do you mean that Christianity isn't a one-size-fits-all, monolithic, narrow world-view populated by mindless, drooling clones? I'll try to remember that.

My posts are rarely meant to address one person when I respond. Your comments are merely a catalyst for thought, and since I've seen many of the "standard" arguments, I prefer to digest my thoughts right here. I'm merely participating in a thinking process, not attempting to define reality itself; I'm not THAT smart.

You can stop banging that drum anytime now 'cause you're really giving me a headache. (Hey, do you remember when I said "Obviously not everyone is the same"!)

I don't think anyone is going to stop you from being an atheist, if that is what you want to be.

And I'm not arguing about this anymore, except to say that, as soon as you believe you have the smarts/arrogance to set up your own large categories and put PEOPLE into them, your create a problem.

That everyone is NOT the same, says enough for me, when it comes to the analysis of what people do and do not perceive as right and wrong, truth and lies.

Some things are ABSOLUTELY incontrovertible, others are not. And ultimately it is up to each individual to seek or recognize those things as they live their lives. What some want to do it PUSH and POKE others with those alleged "truths" they believe are important; I've seen it all of my life. And in the end, the most important aspect appears to be how they treated others in communicating their so-called "truths".

Facts (as good as they can be for all), do not necessarily lead all to the absolute same conclusions (one of the reasons people are different); meaning must also be synthesiszed in order for people to perceive something as "worhtwhile" or even "credible". There is little doubt that when I see the post of a RABID anti-atheist or anti-Christian... it just seems extreme to me.

I've seen "plain ignorance" and the "willfully ignorant" on every side of these arguments; the former I can tolerate readily and the latter... well... not everyone is OPEN-MINDED, they know what they know and believe what they believe. Nothing is worth arguing TOO much.

Finally, I've seen great arguments from skeptics, atheists and Christians period. What is truly left, is for the INDIVIDUAL to consider how their knowledge will be implemented within this reality. And we surely cannot seek to control or mold the hearts and minds of others; people will always have a choice between those things they accept as truth and untruth; people are different and it will always be a MAJOR factor in considering anything (fact, lie, truth, evidence etc.).

I sometimes (for clarity's sake) wish that I could justify being TILTED to the far-extremes. But I have found that truth isn't necessarily found by traveling in the straight-lines (of logic) which many travel; sometimes it is simply near or in the places around you. And since I haven't met or heard of anyone who knows everything, or have the perfect wisdom to APPLY all of their knowledge flawlessly, I move toward the center so I do not step off of the "edge"; which is exactly where some people are standing (think extreme sports, and you'll see what I mean when I address the margins concerning "error").

I apologize if I have been off-topic here (in the specific sense) but generally I have addressed something important; I'm not the best communicator or most knowledgeable person, and I don't pose as such. I try to zoom out on arguments often, and that has its pitfalls.

Still, I have heard a massive amount of arguments and seen a lot of "ego" and "attitude"... even amongst the intellectual crowd. And in the more functional sense, I'd rather be in a workshop full of diverse ideas, than attached to a rail of "logic" or "truth" which takes the EXPRESS route to somewhere we don't really know it's headed. There is so much more to be learned.

Ok, I'm done.

Peace,

-Mel-

[Lotan]

And I'm not arguing about this anymore, except to say that, as soon as you believe you have the smarts/arrogance to set up your own large categories and put PEOPLE into them, your create a problem.

No, you solve a problem. That's what generalizations are for. If we had to take each individual case into account every time we wanted to discuss something our arguments would become so long and tedious that nothing could be accomplished. The only problem is when someone fails to recognize that there are exceptions to a particular generalization, which is not the case here (nor has it been since the beginning of this thread).

Some things are ABSOLUTELY incontrovertible, others are not. And ultimately it is up to each individual to seek or recognize those things as they live their lives. What some want to do it PUSH and POKE others with those alleged "truths" they believe are important; I've seen it all of my life. And in the end, the most important aspect appears to be how they treated others in communicating their so-called "truths".

Yes. This is the road that I mentioned earlier. We've been down it before on this thread.

Nothing is worth arguing TOO much.

So you think it's OK for children to be sold as sex slaves (for example) because we wouldn't want to offend their pimps? We can't argue against that TOO much because "they know what they know and believe what they believe"? Nonsense.

...we surely cannot seek to control or mold the hearts and minds of others...

That is what this thread is about, except that I'm not advocating mind control, I'm trying to expose it. Did you read the article about Ken Ham?

[Cephus]

Some things are ABSOLUTELY incontrovertible, others are not. And ultimately it is up to each individual to seek or recognize those things as they live their lives. What some want to do it PUSH and POKE others with those alleged "truths" they believe are important; I've seen it all of my life. And in the end, the most important aspect appears to be how they treated others in communicating their so-called "truths".

People are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. We see religion pushing absolute nonsense like creationism and flat-earthism, etc. and the people who believe it, believe in defiance of the facts, not because of them. Ultimately, all religion is similar - people believing because they want it to be true, not because they have any reason whatsoever to think that it actually is true.

That is ignorance. It doesn't matter if it's willfull or not, it's still a problem, especially when these ignorant people try to force their demonstrably false beliefs on others.

[melikio]

People are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. We see religion pushing absolute nonsense like creationism and flat-earthism, etc. and the people who believe it, believe in defiance of the facts, not because of them. Ultimately, all religion is similar - people believing because they want it to be true, not because they have any reason whatsoever to think that it actually is true.

It's not that what you and Lotan is saying is wrong (incorrect), but that there are indeed limits to what one person can change or rectify, where it concerns the facts/opinions people DECIDE to embrace.

You cannot factor-out the "humaness", no matter how much you desire or try to. And if you manage to do that, it would induce a massive amount of meaninglessness for many human beings.

That is ignorance. It doesn't matter if it's willfull or not, it's still a problem, especially when these ignorant people try to force their demonstrably false beliefs on others.

I'm not saying you must tolerate ignorance itself, but unless you have some miraculous cure for people's faults or imperfections overall (which knowledge alone does not provide), you WILL need to tolerate ignorant people (which ALL of us are, at certain points/periods in time).

You and others may see the solution as being primarily intellectual, and I admit that there is a major portion of the possible solutions where that which is taught, makes a significant difference. But as sure as I'm sitting here writing this, there are those who would pursue limits upon the things people might "consider", based solely upon what they believe or think is true.

And yes, I'm familiar-enough with the type of mindset and foundation of those like Ken Ham, to personally think/believe he is further to one side than myself. But in reality, there are only limited and incremental checks/balances which can be applied (apart from supression and restrictions, imposed by law). War is an option; where one side attempts to wipe out those who think "wrongly", but other than that there is overall education and tolerance of what others know and believe.

Gently I say, atheists need to be as tolerant as many of them expect Christians or the religious to be. Otherwise, all you become is a threat to those who "choose" to see things differently than yourself.

People are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.

In certain places (space/time), people haven't even had the right to express their opinions, and had to be very careful about that which they presented as fact. The problem was NOT the opnion or fact, but the social environment which existed.

The truth is, that we are not the ones who issue the philosophical "entitlements"; it's not anyone's place to go around, acting as the world's instructor. And it would only be a matter of time before anyone (right/wrong) who pushed something on the wrong person or group of people, would themselves be pushed back.

In a world where both the good and bad (smart/stupid) guys can win, you have to be at least one notch above just claiming and/or proving you are "right"; how is truth actually communicated? (That question is deeper than it seems on the surface.)

If people weren't HUMAN, the world wouldn't be this way. If we were FIXED once we received the "proper" programming, it would be like software... ver. 1.0, 1.0.01, 2.0...etc.; the revisions would likely help us out. But a single cursory yet attentive glance at the world's politics, mankind's power-plays and the rest, and you have a decent snapshot of what I'm describing. Knowledge (as opposed to ignorance) is involved, but it isn't a FULL solution to what ails people. (For humans, UPGRADES are a bitch!!)

Now, the solutions can be approached in myriad ways (and they are), but there is no MAGIC or PERFECT intellectual-bullet, which will FIX ignorance, selfishness, fear, hatred or death. A religious person can have that in a "spiritual" sense, but since we are ALL tied inextricably together in this plysical realm (at least until death, as I view it), we must go beyond making mere knowledge/fact something we might "worship", and apply that truth/knowledge or fact in ways which BENEFIT all people.

I'm no genious, religious or social scholar, but I realize what the negative options are where it concerns these views; people have taken them over and over, too often leaving tolerance, compassion and openess on the back-burner. That is, so many who have believed/thought they were "right", proceeded to force or coerce other human beings to THEIR form of thinking. And whether it comes from Ken Ham or any secularist, the results are similar IF people aren't taught (eventually) to think for themselves.

People just love to say they are RIGHT and that they have PROOF (etc). SO WHAT?!! If you can't communicate, relate and cause such "rightness" to be somewhat meaningful, to those receiving your message (even 1 or 2 people), then you haven't done anything "significant" with your "knowledge". It is good to possess some reasonable certitude concerning that which one believes or thinks; but that should not be confused with thinking or believing that ALL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS are ever going to see the reality or "facts" in exactly the same ways (because it is proven well-enough that such a consensus will be highly-unlikely). The HUMAN factors cannot be overlooked, nor can they factored out; many of those remain connected to us all, and are practically unpredictable as they work within each person.

Reality SPEAKS FOR ITSELF (continuously, despite what we know/believe), but getting people on the SAME PAGE of reality, is another thing altogether.

-Mel-