The stench of Amateur Bible auto-didacts!

by Terry 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Band on the Run

  I don't agree with all of your analysis. It sounds as though you are leaning to a Roman Catholic view that one must possess certain credentials and know the traditions of the Church in order to read the Bible. In the years before Vatican II, it was relatively easy to recruit Catholics b/c they had no idea what scripture was. The Reformation relied on scripture alone.

  I don't believe one needs a PhD to have personal feelings concerning scripture. Some of the best preachers were illiterate. To say that unless one has a seminary degree, one must keep one's mouth shut is silly.

  Frankly, though, I see class differences at play on this forum. The better educated people are more likely to be atheists, agnostics of progressive Christians. I don't believe the difference is education in the scriptures. I would rather here from a mentally ill homeless people than Liberty College Seminarians. Critical thinking skills relate to all knowledge, not only theology or scripture.

  Leo is great but I am not chicken liver. I believe, too, that one can pursue a PhD in history and study Christianity in a neutral manner. Seminaries main purpose is to produce ministers. I wanted to study Gnosticism at Union Theological but was thwarted by a Greek requirement. Besides, what do you do in real life with such a degree?

  God told me is not enough for me. Anyone can claim such revelation. I find it hard to see a just God favoring some people and not others. Besides we have both OT and NT heroes, such as Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah and no one claimed such knowledge. Did God speak to DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Ralhael, Giotto? I think so.

  After taking several academic courses in NT Studies during college, I feel that too often I have a cerebral focus. A person's good character seems more important than how many degrees they have. What was unique about NT Studies was that the prof. had to give us a bibliography so we do not read believers vs. nonbeliever slanted material.

  From a literary viewpoint, the Bible is crucial to so much of literature that knowing your basic Bible stories is essential.

  Autodidacts can be amazing.
• 

  Christ Alone

  Band on the Run: I agree with what you're saying. But I think our culture has changed to such an extent that it is not enough to just relate Bible stories, and preach as an non-intellectual. I just started a thread about this on: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/244328/1/How-Modern-Christianity-has-failed-Christians

  Among other things, I posted: I've recently been thinking about our culture and how Christianity in our western culture has failed to keep up with advancements in science. I think many (or most?) churches have let reason sink into the intellectual closet of Fundamentalism. "Feel good" churches seem to be the norm today. And while there is nothing wrong with that, I think that it's left many (most?) Christians unarmed to discuss their faith with educated non believers. Contemporary Christian worship tends to focus on fostering emotional intimacy with God. That's a great thing. But emotions will carry a person only so far, and then he’s going to need something more substantive.

  Our culture has evolved to such an extent that it is not enough anymore to learn what the Bible says without knowing how to defend it. I think both atheist and believer will agree with that. What awaits us in North America, should our slide into secularism continue unchecked, is already evident in Europe. The most significant trend in European religious affiliation is the growth of those classed as “non-religious” from effectively 0 percent of the population in 1900 to over 22 percent today. As a result evangelism is immeasurably more difficult in Europe than in the United States.

  We no longer live in a culture where preachers can be illiterate and unschooled in science, history, philosophy, et. It just isn't going to cut it anymore. And if it continues the way it has been going, then Christianity will not be a reasonable option for many or even most people. It will be equivalent to what some would liken to belief in fairies.

  American churches are filled with Christians who are idling in intellectual neutral. As Christians, their minds are going to waste. One result of this is an immature, superficial faith. People who simply ride the roller coaster of emotional experience are cheating themselves out of a deeper and richer Christian faith by neglecting the intellectual side of that faith. They know little of the riches of deep understanding of Christian truth, of the confidence inspired by the discovery that one’s faith is logical and fits the facts of experience, and of the stability brought to one’s life by the conviction that one’s faith is objectively true.
• 

  Terry

  Band on the Run: I don't believe one needs a PhD to have personal feelings concerning scripture. Some of the best preachers were illiterate. To say that unless one has a seminary degree, one must keep one's mouth shut is silly.

  Certainly not my intended argument!

  Academic knowledge is different from the emotional feelings of the numinous!

  If anything, I thought I was clearly demaracting the jurisdiction between language, history, exegesis, etc. and theology.

  I think Seminaries are superbly equipped to teach bible languages, textual disciplines, early church father histories, etc. and might well be indispensible in imparting

  the nuances of such subjects. Simply having a Professor handy to "set you straight" on an idea you may develop which is a blind alley or an error is valuable.

  In our Kingdom Hall the Ministry School elder taught us that the Greek word dunamis meant DYNAMITE! So, I went around saying that being the good monkey.

  Well, it doesn't mean dynamite. Dynamite was invented in 1863. See any problem? The word "dynamite" is derrived from dunamis because dunamis means POWER.

  The amateur at the Kingdom Hall had it backwards!

  Band on the Run says:

  I don't agree with all of your analysis. It sounds as though you are leaning to a Roman Catholic view that one must possess certain credentials and know the traditions of the Church in order to read the Bible.

  I'd hardly make such a silly statement. You should know that by now, I'd think:) To speak with authority on the Greek, the Aramaic or the Hebrew to ascribe defintions to texts one NEEDS ACADEMIC TRAINING. That's my argument. The Catholic Church did NOT teach the bible because that was not it's source authority! It was it's OWN authority through magesterium and tradition! Martin Luther sought to replace that magesterium WITH THE BIBLE and thus began the madcap idea anybody could read and understand scripture! I say: ha ha ha ha ha. The proliferation of sects, cults, denominations and DISAGREEMENT in Christianity theology was born anew by Luther's crazy scheme!
• 

  Christ Alone

  Luther was correct, at least from a Biblical standpoint. That was his whole argument. You don't need the church to understand scripture. You need God. Whether you agree with it or not the Bible says that natural man will never be able to understand the truth of the scripture on his own. But it's not the church that has the power or authority alone to give understanding. It's only the Spirit of God that can reveal the truth of God. (1Cor 2:10-16)

  This is anti-intuitive and sounds ridiculous to the secularist. It makes no sense that faith is given to someone. That understanding is given to someone. Unless they've done all the work themselves, they cannot know anything. But regardless, Luther taught that it is by hearing the word of God, not the word of the church, that one comes to faith. (Rom 10:17). He also taught that God gives wisdom to all that ask it of him in faith. (James 1:5,6).

  If you disagree with what Luther taught about it, then really you are disagreeing with the Bible as it does not indicate that a church would be necessary to understand the scriptures.

  So with this understanding, no Christian is actually an autodidact. Their teacher would ultimately be God.
• 

  Terry

  If you disagree with what Luther taught about it, then really you are disagreeing with the Bible as it does not indicate that a church would be necessary to understand the scriptures.

  The word "understand" is provable how, exactly?

  Each denomination insists with equal confidence that they alone have the true understanding.

  You see my point?

  All these denominations have the single source: bible.

  All pray and ask God for his spirit of understanding.

  All claim they receive it.

  And all disagree.

  I count this as a refutation of Luther. Why don't you?

  Casting chicken bones or reading tea leaves would be about the same measure of reliability, I'd think :)

  Luther was correct, at least from a Biblical standpoint.

  Respectfully, using the bible to understand the bible is the essence of circular reasoning.
• 

  Christ Alone

  Each denomination insists with equal confidence that they alone have the true understanding.

  I've heard this stated many times, usually by current JWs, and I just haven't found this true at all. Maybe I just haven't had enough experience in denominationalism. I don't attend a denominational church myself. I go to a non denominational one. But I have been to several others. Each time I attended one (i.e baptist, lutheran, presbyterian), and maybe this was just by chance, they acknowledged that they did not alone of total truth and were the only true Christians. They acknowledged that there were Christians in many other churches. They were only one part of the body of Christ.

  So my experience tells me that this is false. Each denomination or nondenominational church is attempting to teach only truth. But they have the understanding that they could be wrong in some issues. And that there is no one organization or denomination that is the "true" church today.

  All these denominations have the single source: bible.

  All pray and ask God for his spirit of understanding.

  All claim they receive it.

  And all disagree.

  This, again, I find not to be the case. The differences in orthodox Christianity is usually very slight. There may be some that believe baptism is necessary for salvation, while others (while acknowledging that baptism is necessary) believe that it is not an absolute requirement. But the major tenants are largely agreed with. Jesus is God's son and should be worshiped as the only savior and way to God.
• 

  Christ Alone

  Respectfully, using the bible to understand the bible is the essence of circular reasoning.

  I was merely showing that Luther did not come up with a new idea. He was repeating what the scriptures stated. And I didn't say that the Bible helps you understand the Bible. I was stating that it teaches that God is the one that gives faith and understanding. And without this gift, the Bible will be rejected.
• 

  Finkelstein

  There is a sutle irony in religious theology though, in realizing that people are creating a preponderance of faith and

  beliefs upon anther men's theological expressions which were derived from their own perceiving ignorance.

  A matter of fact a measure of that individual's spiritual strength is weighed upon how much steadfast knowledge that person

  adheres to another man's ignorance and to a further extent their lies.
• 

  Terry

  This, again, I find not to be the case. The differences in orthodox Christianity is usually very slight.

  Aye, here's the rub: Christianity among the hoi polloi is not theology at all.

  It is social and charity. But, team rivalry is in the dna because that is how

  these denomination germinated. Each in response to a disagreement (usually quite apocalyptic) with the earlier branch or movement.

  If you doubt this, go on Youtube and watch the debates!

  Churches today have lost too many members to insist on orthodoxy in sermons.

  It is more social and entertainment with a friendly, fuzzy, warmth.

  But, make no mistake about it--the seminaries have strict guidelines about what must constitute "true" belief.

  When I worked at the bookstore in the Religion section I had many conversations with Seminary Students and the occasional professor would come in, also.

  One of the brightest graduates I had the pleasure of knowing had been originally from Kenya. He was invited to Pastor a church out of state.

  He moved his wife and himself there. During the interview (he revealed in our subsequent phone conversation) it was stipulated to him what "must not be taught or mentioned" were he to accept the job!

  I probed him for specifics, of course. It had to do with "true belief" and the avoidance of "error". What was true belief and what was error?

  Inerrancy of the bible was a big one!
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “In our Kingdom Hall the Ministry School elder taught us that the Greek word dunamis meant DYNAMITE!”

  That is damned funny, and simultaneously sad.

  I can’t begin telling all the asinine mind-farts like that I’ve heard over the years from some elder wetting his pants over a perceived epiphany after reviewing a tidbit in his copy of Strong, Thayer or Smith's at his home library by himself at midnight.

  Eyes rolling in the audience of fellow Witnesses or at the door of a stranger didn’t mean thing to these guys. They just keep truckin like nuttin.

  Believe it or not, I once heard an elder illustrate from the platform how God takes care of his creatures by relating how the space under tree canopies seems to be at just the right height for cattle to get comfortably underneath for shade without bumping their heads yet just within reach for nibbling. He explained that only that morning he had observed this very thing in the pastureland right next door to the Kingdom Hall and what a wonder it was to observe this provision by Jehovah.

  What a freaking dope! Every farmer in the audience nearly crapped in his pants trying to keep from vomiting laughter! And do you think this moron ceased? Nooooo. Only a week later at his home congregation I heard him repeat the same nonsense in a Watchtower comment, and this despite well-meaning and experienced agrarians having splained it to him a week earlier.

  I swear these guys have these wet-dream ideas and they just can’t help themselves. It’s annoying for sure, but damned if it’s not entertaining!!!

  Thanks for sharing Terry!

  Marvin Shilmer