How much do they know?

[nobspeople]

Oft times it's heard christians shouting from mountaintops 'this or that' about their religion. They make claims of 'knowing' this or that about god, what god meant, how to live life according to their religion, and on and on and on. And on.
But how much do they REALLY know about their religion? How it got its start? Why this sect believes this and that sect believes that? Who wrote their precious book? Who edited it? And how many times? At times, you'll hear them make claims about things that aren't known by any human being (god is the king of everything even though they don't know 'everything').
How much does the average christian know about the history of their religion? How it came to be? How different (or similar) it is from the original concept? Not to mention what's said in the original text?

For discussion:
Should modern christians' claims of knowledge about their religion be taken as legitimate, or should they simply be pacified in an effort not to 'hurt their feelings'? Live and let live (a concept that seems alien to many christians), as it were.
Or should people stand up to their (many times) antagonistic views and challenge them?

[Difflugia]

Should modern christians' claims of knowledge about their religion be taken as legitimate, or should they simply be pacified in an effort not to 'hurt their feelings'? Live and let live (a concept that seems alien to many christians), as it were.

Or should people stand up to their (many times) antagonistic views and challenge them?

It depends on what you mean by "taken as legitimate." I don't think most Christians are lying in the classical sense about their claims, but at the same time, they're wrong. I don't think there's a moral obligation to correct someone's information, particularly with the increasing democratization of access to knowledge, but neither is there a moral obligation to coddle someone in their belief that they're well-informed.

I suppose my moral position is that it's not up to me to challenge willful ignorance, but when I'm able, I should make information more available to those earnestly seeking it.

[Diagoras]

How much does the average christian know about the history of their religion?

Probably about as much as they are comfortable with, but no more.

I suspect (but this is merely a personal opinion), that to the Christians who study the Bible mainly as a spiritual guide, the idea of investigating historical origins of any part of it wouldn't naturally occur to them. To the extent that a particular passage confused them or created doubt, the more likely course of action would be to seek out a different interpretation (perhaps from their priest) to 'resolve' it in their mind. Thinking, "this sounds a lot like an Egyptian ritual, but modified - I wonder why they did it that way?", and then researching the kind of cross-cultural influences, political influences and so on, would probably seem pointless. Also, probably dangerous - what if all those sacrificial rules in Leviticus are nonsense?

Since joining here, I've learned a lot more about the origins and history of Christianity: it's genuinely fascinating. But that's coming from an 'outsider' perspective, and my reason for learning isn't to 'get closer to God' - it's more to try and make sense of why so many people choose to believe in a rather arbitrary bunch of primitive writings written centuries ago.

As an example of what I mean, the Book of Revelation has been studied extensively, but the idea of it being anything other than a description of the end of the world (to come fairly soon!) is anathema to many. They simply won't countenance the idea that such apocalyptic literature at the time it was written could be understood as a coded political message.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. The mental approach is what it is actually about now.

Like I say, the 'what' is done

the How is now also done

The 'Why' is what's interesting.

The How is Faith. That's the key. They argue from a Faith -based assumption "It's True". And (depending on on how far gone they are) Reality itself can be denied if needed. If it makes no sense, it makes sense to God.If it is clearly not what history or science has shown, then 'science' is wrong. It's why 'nobody knows anything for sure' is a win to them because it leaves their Faith -claim as the only answer. To them, because logically and evidentially, it isn't. It leaven no answer.

But they truly do not see it that way (until they do and that's the start of Faith unravelling) it's why I say the debate is over - they lost - and the real agenda is who controls the public opinion.