Why do christians limit their reading material of extra-biblical sources?

[g.owen]

a response from a Christian...

I am a Christian, and I speak for myself here.

"why Christians restrict their own access to extra-biblical reading material?"

I used to read "extra-biblical" material with great interest. Then I wandered from the faith for about 7 years (or something like that). Then, I returned. And I have reached a point where it does not interest me to read extra-biblical material. I will explain it like this - I have reached a point where my heart has eclipsed my mind. A non-believer will likely say that I am brainwashed. That term is as good as any. I spend my time seeking revelation from God, from the Word of God. I am at a point where the opinions of man do not matter on certain subjects. I will attempt to explain something, but find it difficult to find adequate words because it is often something that I have experienced that makes me believe a certain thing. If the person I am talking to has not had the same experiences, it is hard communicate the idea. It’s like trying to explain how chocolate tastes to someone that has never had it. So, I see little point in reading other material at this point in life – because the information is …empty of meaning. Perhaps many Christians are this way.

"how many times have Christians actually looked up the references or made an effort to read them? "

The above addresses this question.

"What is it that they fear about learning?"

I do not fear learning. In fact, I crave it. But it is not knowledge that you can not give references for or easily put into words - or at least I can't. I find it easier to express myself in art.

I understand that this way of thinking (or being) makes dialogue between what we call believers and non-believers difficult. I think many Christians are not in touch with this concept. We sometimes feel something so strongly, yet are unable to make others understand. Have you ever seen a foreigner that does not speak the language well become frustrated because he cannot communicate? It’s sometimes like that. I think this is why Jesus taught in parables – it makes it easier to wrap your mind around a concept that sometimes…transcends what we concider to be logic. Hopefully, this helps answer some of your questions.

 

[SkinWalker]

If I were to paraphrase the poster above, I'd say that those that believe are satisfied with their beliefs and not interested in challenging them. Most believers don't even critically review intra-biblical sources, so extra-biblical primary sources are not even considered.

Satisfaction comes from the answers they get from religious leaders and mentors and little motivation exists to look further.

The poster above likens his "knowledge" to the attempt in explaining the taste of chocolate to a person who's never tried it, but the correct analogy is the chocolate lover who has never tried or experienced vanilla, cherry, tutti-fruiti, caramel, strawberry, etc. That person knows and loves chocolate, but will never be able to compare chocolate to other flavors. Perhaps it doesn't compare at all. Perhaps his devotion to chocolate was in no danger. The chocolate lover remains ignorant all the same.

Ultimately, analogies like these fail, so I'll pursue it no further. Religious adherence isn't an affinity to sweets. Christianity isn't chocolate.

Religion is, however, a big business. And like all businesses, it behooves those in charge of marketing to create a brand -particularly one that others will quickly identify with. Christianity is a brand. And people rarely employ empiricism and reason with regard to brand loyalty. They're told its more effective than the leading brand; that it offers more for less; that results are better -the advertising is top-notch and the pressure to keep buying great.

The product is alleged to be "salvation," "ever-lasting life" and so on.

Let me be clear: I've not simply made analogy to big-business. Religion *is* big-business in every way.

 

[g.owen]

Good post skinwalker. I see no points on which I disagree. But I would like to respond to a few things. Skinwalker said, "…Satisfaction comes from the answers they get from religious leaders and mentors and little motivation exists to look further…."

What you said here is true. But this type of satisfaction would be like the way you feel after a drink of water. You have had something to drink and are no longer thirsty. But in time, you will be. It is my opinion that some religious leaders exploit this, and manage their ministry in a way that encourages the believer to drink from the religious leader's hand/cup - it keeps 'em coming back for more (so you can get more of their money). This relates to what you were saying about religion being big business. But this is improper Christianity. As Christ said to the woman at the well, "drink of me and you will thirst no more". This goes beyond satisfaction. It speaks of the type of answers that result in fulfillment. This is why we have that saying that sounds so silly to some - Jesus is the answer. No preacher or mentor can provide that. Such a thing must come by revelation - God revealing Himself to you personally (not through another - a preacher or mentor). I don't mean to ramble, or preach. I am trying to answer Medicine*Woman's questions and help her understand the issues.

Also, Skinwalker said, "...Christianity isn't chocolate...". I understand your point there. And I will add to that by saying that the kingdom of God is NOT a mustard seed…it is like one.

 

[Nutter]

As smart as these learned christians may be.Can any of them provide EMPIRICAL evidence the bible is the word of god??

Please explain how one would go about providing empirical evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

 

[SkinWalker]

If the evidence existed, it could be shown. If, however, the bible was invented and a magical, non-existent being were attributed to it, obviously no evidence will be forth-coming.

 

[Nutter]

If the evidence existed, it could be shown. If, however, the bible was invented and a magical, non-existent being were attributed to it, obviously no evidence will be forth-coming.

What is the criteria that must be fulfilled for a piece of evidence to qualify in this context?

 

[Magnus]

Misnomer

Most Christians are well read, and can seperate the spiritual and enlightened from the religious.

These are two very different things.

Christianity is in the heart, and a very personal relationship between ones self, and ones maker,

Religion is a man made doctrine, only providing a place for others of the same belief to show their faith.

Religion is Church business each having a structured church policy or belief that the patrons follow or agree upon. A Church is a building made of rocks and or boards.

Spiritualism, enlightenment, or the inner spirit has nothing to do with organized man made church rules and beliefs.

The essence of what we are is a personal unique thing inside each one of us.

Having said that, then for one to say that most Christians dont, or wont look at other evidence or material is pretty narrow or niave?

It could be they are so enlightened that biblical cannon is enough?

The bible is a wonderful moral outline saving one many pitfalls in life, for some people this is self evident, and enough!

It would be admirable to say the least to have a faith so strong that this is all that is needed to sustain one through the passage of their existance in time.

Most of us could only dream of such a child like unconditional faith.

If the question then becomes one of empirical evidence then one must realize that evidence is only required by those who dont believe, or understand.

A parallel to this could be explained as: The law isnt written for those that keep it, its for those that do not.

Is then the bible for those that dont believe or understand? The truth is a "well" man needs no doctor, so to speak!

Interesting comparision to look at and ponder anyway.

As one becomes well read and somewhat seasoned in these matters then enlightenment will answer many of our unanswered questions in life.

However, true enlightenment is almost, if not always, found through the hardship!

Stereotyping a "Christian"?

Crows are blackbirds, but not all blackbirds are crows!



Magnus

 

[nova900]

Please explain how one would go about providing empirical evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

Here's the definition....Empirical:a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

So therefore in this case, either direct visible observation (not just detected by one's intuition or dreams),or repeatable verifiable communications with people who have passed on to the afterlife.

 

[nova900]

1)Spiritualism, enlightenment, or the inner spirit has nothing to do with organized man made church rules and beliefs.


2)The bible is a wonderful moral outline saving one many pitfalls in life, for some people this is self evident, and enough!


3)If the question then becomes one of empirical evidence then one must realize that evidence is only required by those who dont believe, or understand.

On point 1) ..I agree.

2)While I see some good parables and passages that seem spiritual in nature,large sections of the bible contain horrific actions attributed to God. He is shown to be a god of war,a cursing,jealous,vengefull god full of hate many times(especially the OT).

3) Don't agree. The "don't understand " is a cop-out. It's the usual "out of context", or "we don't have the right to question Yahwehs' plan or methods",even when many christians read these disturbing parts of the bible they seem to conveniantly try to brush it away.

 

[SkinWalker]

What is the criteria that must be fulfilled for a piece of evidence to qualify in this context?

The same as the requirements for evidence of any other positive claim. I fail to see what the difficulty is. Are you not familiar with the requirements of evidence in scientific discovery? Do the words reproducible and verifiable mean anything to you? Does the concept of hypothetico-deductive methodology mean anything?

Or is this just a word game whereas the christian attempts to point out such evidence cannot be expected from a work of literature so old? If so, you're wasting your time since epigraphy has long been used in archaeology to test the veracity of claims. But then, the claim here is that the bible was divinely written. So the evidence would lie elsewhere. We might then deduce what characteristics aren't in the bible if it were divinely inspired, eh? Perhaps that would be a way to start the game.

What characteristics would the bible *not* have if it were the true word of god?

I'm guessing inconsistencies and falsehoods (either intentional or unintentional). I'm guessing accuracy in place names with respect to geography and chronology -and this accuracy should be 100% given that the book is alleged to be written by a god.

There are other characteristics that should/should not be present. Perhaps others could chime in and name a few and then we could start a new thread on "Was the bible divinely inspired by god?"

Most Christians are well read, and can seperate the spiritual and enlightened from the religious.

I disagree and should like to see data supporting this point before moving on to your remaining points. I don't think the Tim Lahaye books can be considered well-read, by the way. But by well-read do you mean in general or do you mean in spiritual/religious works. If the latter, do you mean that christians are also well-read in the works of authors that have spiritual/religious beliefs that are other than christian (i.e. Buddhist, Islamic, and Secular Humanist works)?

Finally, what data allows you to make the statement "Christians are well read?" Is there a PEW study or a Barna Group poll that I'm unaware of? Could you share this reference?

 

[Magnus]

I understand. I use to have enough time to read a wide variety of material that is out there. I liked the books like “Enoch” that where part of the scrolls recovered in the Qumran findings called the "DEAD SEA SCROLLS".

Why the powers to be decided that some books were okay for our present day canon we call the modern bible, and some were not is beyond me.

It may have presented a very different picture of the Earth, and man in the time of Genesis.

It is well known many leaders and rulers, as well as the religious clerical powers to be over a long period manipulated these works.

“Back to my comment on the Book of “Enoch”;

I think you can find a copy of this book and others if you type in a inquiry in your search engine.

It is shown in the bible men such as Moses who question God and his decisions.

Like Moses asking why God waited till he was an old man to ask him to deliver his people from Egypt.

I think its okay to question. We were given our own intelligents and should discern all information.

The reference material for this should come from authentic sources, not books from people making their own conclusions.

Reading other people’s comments are a good way to get another point of view, but in my opinion if you want to know about something go to the source.

If you are studying Christianity then get the actual books and records, then conclude truth for yourself based on known records, or all that is know of them.

Try to find copies of the other books and scrolls found, as well as other records from known civilizations like the Assyrian text and such.

I have a program that will translate Hebrew and the Greek text from there original writings to English.

I get something very different from many passages than those who translated our modern bible.

It doesn’t change the message of the scripture in the end, but how it is concluded can be very different at many turns in study.

My final comment would be that it is easy to over complicate all of this.

It’s a pretty clear and simplistic message in my opinion.

That of course is all any of us have is our own opinion and how we conclude our understanding of materials and subject matter we may study and ponder.

Once it was a Empirical fact that the earth was flat, now it is round.

Take care

 

[Magnus]

The Christians that I know are very familiar with historical documents and archeological finds ect., as well as other spiritual and religious doctrines.

There isn’t just one correct answer that satisfies all controversy! Just as there are many roads into the city, not just one takes you there.

To study the primary known source findings authenticated as authentic, such as the books found in The Dead Sea Scrolls.

"Example", to study things like the Flood in other records such as the Assyrian records ect..

This is what I meant about being fairly well read on what is known of the source findings authenticated concerning the modern Christian bible, their beliefs, and culture.

There are still those that are sharp enough to make argument about any subject. Some just like to see their name in writing.

I would like to say that for me when you pick the petals off the flower to find out why its beautiful you find a dead plant.

A passive observation!

Magnus

 

[Nutter]

As smart as these learned christians may be.Can any of them provide EMPIRICAL evidence the bible is the word of god??

Why would one do that???

 

[nova900]

Why would one do that???

Simple.
So, that people who have the nerve to preach hellfire(like Billy /Franklin Graham) and that it's the "only true religion", can convince the rest of us that the bible is the word of god (which it isn't of course).
Otherwise they can all shut their big yaps!

 

[Photizo]

If the evidence existed, it could be shown. If, however, the bible was invented and a magical, non-existent being were attributed to it, obviously no evidence will be forth-coming.

"Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility...

In general, a witness is competent if he meets four requirements:

1. He must, with understanding, take the oath or a substitute. Evid. Code §§ 710, 701; Fed. Rules Evid. 603.

2. He must have personal knowledge about the subject of his testimony. In other words, the witness must have perceived something with his senses that is relevant to the case. Evid. Code § 702; Fed. Rules Evid. 602.

3. He must remember what he perceived.

4. He must be able to communicate what he perceived. Evid. Code § 701(a)(1)."

Source: A SUMMARY OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE:
THE ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR SURVIVAL IN THE COURTROOM
By Vincent DiCarlo

"Dear brothers and sisters, I solemnly assure you that the Good News of salvation which I preach is not based on mere human reasoning or logic...For my message came by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ himself. No one else taught me...

I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me...

I (the Apostle Paul) say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost...

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not...

Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not...

(I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not)...

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began...

That by two immutable things (His Word and Promise), in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us..."

 

[SkinWalker]

"Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility...

In science, mere testimony is the absolute worst form of evidence, particularly if there are no independent verifiers. This is because people are obviously subject to personal biases, agendas, political purpose, pre-conceived conclusions to which they refuse to acknowledge any additional data, embellishments, misunderstood or misperceived observations, etc, etc., etc....

Dismissed.

 

[SnakeLord]

Source: A SUMMARY OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE:
THE ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR SURVIVAL IN THE COURTROOM
By Vincent DiCarlo

Well, as you mention courtrooms - it's worth pointing out that the testimony of one person is meaningless..

{Judge} Did you abuse kids

{M.J} No *does a swivel while holding nutsack*

{Judge} You're free to go.

See how silly that is?

 

[Photizo]

In science, mere testimony is the absolute worst form of evidence, particularly if there are no independent verifiers. This is because people are obviously subject to personal biases, agendas, political purpose, pre-conceived conclusions to which they refuse to acknowledge any additional data, embellishments, misunderstood or misperceived observations, etc, etc., etc....

Dismissed.

"In science" huh?

Well, the discerning reader would understand I am not 'talking' "in science", I am 'talking' The Word of God Incarnate...IN CHRIST... YHWH (who is Spirit) and Man (Made in God's Image) in relationship--the interaction between essences of that which truly defines us (whether God or Man)... i.e. that which is Spiritual.

"Science" is powerless--too 'weak' if you will--to measure/make sense of things in this realm (the spiritual). Indeed, it is simply inadequate/incapable for/of such a task.

Always use the right tool for the right job. Regardless, your logical faux pas comes at a cost:

"You're fired."

 

[SkinWalker]

I don't know if you noticed or not, but this is a science message board. If you don't like it, take your superstition and magical thoughts elsewhere.

In other words, most of those that post at Sciforums are here because of science. We expect to explain the universe in scientific terms. That includes looking at all data and not just that which conforms to a pre-conceived conclusion. This directly addresses the OP's point.

I'm not saying that leave because you are a religious proponent or adherent. I'm saying don't post here if you cannot tolerate the scientific perspective. If the only perspective you're willing to tolerate is your own, exclusive superstition's, you have no place here.

The deleted posts are because they have been off-topic. If you've an issue with a deleted post, do not post it again. PM me or discuss it in the Site Feedback section.

 

[Photizo]

Content Deleted. Off-topic.