Has Christianity become anti-intellectual?

[aspen]

This is an important question because what I have been seeing a lot lately is this, almost fanatical, need to speak only in proof text. No commentary or context is necessary - in fact, it is rejected if offered. I would like to remind everyone that before the 20th century, Christian thought included volumes and volumes of commentary! The Summa Theologica is all commentary - Augustine, Oriegin, Athanasius wrote volumes of commentary on the scriptures and ideas that flowed from the scriptures - they are the Church Fathers - Polycarp was a disciple of Mark; Justin Martyr started a school of the philosophy of Christianity - he spoke out again Paganism using philosophical Christian arguments.

All of these orthodox teachings are no longer valued or seen as authoritative - instead, people reject Christian reason for proof texts. It is ok to think about scripture and Christian ideas that flow from them. Recently, I referred to Augustine for an explanation of evil and I got a response similar to 'I don't care what some guy says about it, show me some scripture!'. I don't care what some guy has to say about it? Wow - we've come a long way from the Early Church.......

 

[FHII]

No Aspen, what you are seeing is people -- including myself -- pointing out that many of your theories are against what the Bible says. You are seeing people asking you to prove your point with the Bible. It shouldn't be that hard if what you say is true.

Now regarding Augustine... Don't you think you are being a bit dramatic? Unless you are talking about someone other than myself, what I said about him and his work is far from the picture you paint. I have stated I have not read his work, so I can't comment. However, if a choice has to be made between the Bible and Augustine, for me it's a no brainer. I'm reading Calvin now, and have studied Luther in the past. I like them! But when they go against the Bible, I don't support their views.

I have great love and respect for history, and am just now getting into the history of theology.... In other words, studying what these type of folks (Polycarp, Augustine, Luther, etc) had to say. I think it's fascinating! I enjoy their works. But their commentaries and opinions don't hold the same weight as the Bible. That's the bottom line. However, I didn't say nor even project that type of attitude.

AND.... I can give Bible on that!

Aspen, Please by all means give commentary on the subject. However, yea I kind of do want some Bible to back it up. I'd kind of like some reasoning why the tree of knowledge of good and evil didn't have any unusual powers. I'd kind of like reasoning why the Book of Job is "just a story" (as I assume you believe). I'd kind of like reasoning why God didn't create evil when the Bible says he created everything.

 

[aspen]

No Aspen, what you are seeing is people -- including myself -- pointing out that many of your theories are against what the Bible says. You are seeing people asking you to prove your point with the Bible. It shouldn't be that hard if what you say is true.

Now regarding Augustine... Don't you think you are being a bit dramatic? Unless you are talking about someone other than myself, what I said about him and his work is far from the picture you paint. I have stated I have not read his work, so I can't comment. However, if a choice has to be made between the Bible and Augustine, for me it's a no brainer. I'm reading Calvin now, and have studied Luther in the past. I like them! But when they go against the Bible, I don't support their views.

I have great love and respect for history, and am just now getting into the history of theology.... In other words, studying what these type of folks (Polycarp, Augustine, Luther, etc) had to say. I think it's fascinating! I enjoy their works. But their commentaries and opinions don't hold the same weight as the Bible. That's the bottom line. However, I didn't say nor even project that type of attitude.

AND.... I can give Bible on that!

Aspen, Please by all means give commentary on the subject. However, yea I kind of do want some Bible to back it up. I'd kind of like some reasoning why the tree of knowledge of good and evil didn't have any unusual powers. I'd kind of like reasoning why the Book of Job is "just a story" (as I assume you believe). I'd kind of like reasoning why God didn't create evil when the Bible says he created everything.

The Bible will not help you understand what I am saying because you will counter the verses I provide with other verses or interpret the verses I provide in your own voice or the voice of your denomination. You have been cut off from the entire history of Christianity. I am glad you are starting to look into church history more.

I've already explained the idea of evil to you many times and explained to you that it is a Christian philosophical argument, not a scriptural argument. Christian used to be allowed to reason from the scriptures.

I think it is also important to point out that I am not interpreting any doctrine our scriptures in a heretical manner - I am not denying the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the inspiration of scripture - I hold scripture up as my authority. Many, many people on this board cannot make this claim - they are here pushing heretical doctrine. I apologize if I am wrong on this point, but I think I remember you even denying the doctrine of the Trinity......

The fact is my understanding of Christianity is actually quite orthodox - I just happen to enjoy thinking deeply about no essential elements of the faith.

 

[FHII]

The Bible will not help you understand what I am saying because you will counter the verses I provide with other verses or interpret the verses I provide in your own voice or the voice of your denomination. You have been cut off from the entire history of Christianity. I am glad you are starting to look into church history more.

The Bible will not help me understand what you are saying because I will counter the verses you provide? Well, try me. I will interpret them or my denomination will? Well, fella.... I don't have a denomination! If I do, it's what the Bible says! I've been beat before by folks that provide Bible verses, and it's bound to happen again. And you have a lot of nerve saying that I interpret anything.... Please. I don't think you can begin a Bible conversation without saying "I think that..."

Now what about my "own voice"... If I quote the Bible and it finds flaws with your theory... Hey.... Don't blame me. Provide the verses and let's throw down the Almond branch to see what sprouts!

I've already explained the idea of evil to you many times and explained to you that it is a Christian philosophical argument, not a scriptural argument. Christian used to be allowed to reason from the scriptures.

Yea.... That says a lot. You bring "Christian philosophy", and I bring scripture. You bring, "I think that...", while I bring "Thus saith the Lord", and "It is written..."

I think it is also important to point out that I am not interpreting any doctrine our scriptures in a heretical manner - I am not denying the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the inspiration of scripture - I hold scripture up as my authority. Many, many people on this board cannot make this claim - they are here pushing heretical doctrine. I apologize if I am wrong on this point, but I think I remember you even denying the doctrine of the Trinity......

Snicker... Hey, I'm not a trinitarian! So now I'm a heretic? No, Aspen. You don't hold scripture up as your authority! If you did, you wouldn't have wasted so much time with Isa 45:7. You wouldn't be avoiding Isa 46:10 like it was the black plague! As for the Trinity question.... I am not going to be derailed again. I'll discuss it some other time.

So yea... Great show you got going on. I'm interpreting scripture, but you aren't. I am discussing scripture as I give it and adding COMMENTARY to it. So I ain't as "anti-intellectual" as you think.

The fact is my understanding of Christianity is actually quite orthodox - I just happen to enjoy thinking deeply about no essential elements of the faith.

Well my understanding of Christianity as well as Jesus' and Paul's ain't orthodox. The three of us see it as a bowl of puke! And enjoy thinking deeply about no essential elements of the faith, whatever that means.

 

[aspen]

I have never claimed to be teaching doctrine or scripture, FHII. Never. In fact, my profile page says I am here for discussion. It is true, I am here for discussion on Christian ideas, doctrine, theology and scripture - I am not here for a sword drill. I am not here to beat you or to shock you with my 'nerve'.

I am certainly not here to proof text. Even if Isaiah 45:7 is correctly interpreted as 'God created evil' (an idea that you refuse to recognize the ramifications of for God's character) it is not a proof text for the origin of evil. It is sad to me that you have limited your Christian experience to the literal interpretation of scripture - you are missing out on 2,000+ years of Christian ideas. In no other area of study do students reject the ideas of yesterday and reinvent the wheel every time they approach a topic in their area of study. Could you imagine doing this in the area of science or math?? This is the anti-intellectualism I am talking about in full color. You think you are avoiding human ideas and only focusing on God - what you are really doing is exposing yourself to the terrible danger of private interpretation.

The problem of Evil in the world has been a topic of orthodox Christian discussion for 2000+ years - it has also been explained as the absence or the lesser form of good for most of that time period - it is actually a very benign statement. You also here the same idea a lot in Christian circles today - 'missing the mark', 'falling short', etc.

John calls it lawlessness in 1 John 3:4 - lawlessness is the lack of law, a lesser good. A lie is the lack of truth. This is not some outrageous idea - you just don't like it.

If you knew your Christian history, you would know that the truth nature of God as Trinity is the very foundation of Christianity - all the truth about the nature of God and Christ and the Holy Spirit and monotheism is based on this idea - it cannot be removed. All church heresy begins with tampering with the true nature of God. You can see it in every church heresy from Gnosticism to Mormonism.

As far as the Creation story is concerned - it may be literal and it may not be - it is the least of my interests in the story. Also, I refuse to believe any interpretation of scripture that blasphemes the character of God - believing that God planned our Fall into sin and determined who would be with Him for eternity and who would be tortured for eternity is blasphemy, pure and simple. It assassinates the nature of the character of God. If this is true, I choose Hell - it would be unethical to spend eternity with a God of such evil character.

 

[Episkopos]

God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.

 

[FHII]

I'm not interested in getting into a spitting contest with you Aspen. If you continue to make claims that are not supported by the Bible, I will continue to ask you for a Bible reference and refute them with the Bible. Ptich whatever Augustine and CS Lewis beliefs you want, but it still isn't the Word of God, which is the Bible.

 

[aspen]

In the initial centuries of the Christian church, Early Christianity there was no single New Testament canon that was universally recognized

Eusebius,Church History, (III xxv 5)

 

[Episkopos]

In the initial centuries of the Christian church, Early Christianity there was no single New Testament canon that was universally recognized

Eusebius,Church History, (III xxv 5)

And as long as men of the Spirit led the church the word of God was not able to be twisted into fables. But after the godly ones were put to death, the clerics came in with bizarre traditions.

 

[aspen]

And as long as men of the Spirit led the church the word of God was not able to be twisted into fables. But after the godly ones were put to death, the clerics came in with bizarre traditions.

Ah so all the leaders of the church between 30 AD and the 4th century were 'Spirit lead"? How did you determine that, Episkopos? Certainly not from scripture.

 

[FHII]

In the initial centuries of the Christian church, Early Christianity there was no single New Testament canon that was universally recognized

Eusebius,Church History, (III xxv 5)

Well, now there is, Aspen.

 

[aspen]

Well, now there is, Aspen.

Yep. It was all Tradition before it was scripture, FHII. I've noticed when people start commenting on how I post, it is often because they cannot address what I am saying.

 

[FHII]

No.... It was written before it was tradition. And I always adress when you post. I make it a point to do so.....

 

[aspen]

No.... It was written before it was tradition. And I always adress when you post. I make it a point to do so.....

So you believe that tradition flowed from scripture? Wow. What is your evidence for this?

 

[THE Gypsy]

"Has Christianity become anti-intellectual?"


IMO...I don not believe it's as much as Christianity becoming "anti-intellectual" as much as it is many Christians have become intellectually lazy...which is evident in the canned answers they offer.

 

[FHII]

So you believe that tradition flowed from scripture? Wow. What is your evidence for this?

Jesus said, "it is written". All the apostles referred to what was written. When they addressed their Churches, they wrote letters.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

The standard way of communicating on the Internet is by proof of text. We demand source, for ideas, or claims of truth/fact. Opinions are accepted as opinions, IF, they're stated as an opinion. However, if your opinions seem to be contrary to the mass concensus, you may be asked to defend the basis of your opinion.

Christianity has become more intelectual. I think it's also because of conversing on the internet. Most of us are part of other forums that are not Christian. Many times the topic of religion (specifically Christianity) come up. It's important that we're all apt at Google Fu, and can site source, and reason for opinions, facts, etc.

What has changed isn't so much as a person becoming more or less intelectual, what has changed is the availability of sources for information. People are no longer living in a time where rumors, specualtion, ideas, and opinions can be expressed without backing it up.

IMHO, This is awesome!

 

[aspen]

Jesus said, "it is written". All the apostles referred to what was written. When they addressed their Churches, they wrote letters.

Yeah, Jesus was referring to the Jewish scriptures as authority......of course, those scriptures was passed down orally for centuries before they were written down! Jesus was appealing to authority, not making a statement about sola scriptura.

 

[FHII]

Yeah, Jesus was referring to the Jewish scriptures as authority......of course, those scriptures was passed down orally for centuries before they were written down! Jesus was appealing to authority, not making a statement about sola scriptura.

You might be able say that only until the time when Moses wrote the first four books. Since then, it was written as it came about. Furthermore, there were writings before that. Whose to say it was all passed on orally? Enoch wrote scriptures too, and it is quoted in the Book of Jude. I've read parts of that book and there are accounts given that go back to Genesis 5. That was written only about 600 years after the fall.

 

[aspen]

You might be able say that only until the time when Moses wrote the first four books. Since then, it was written as it came about. Furthermore, there were writings before that. Whose to say it was all passed on orally? Enoch wrote scriptures too, and it is quoted in the Book of Jude. I've read parts of that book and there are accounts given that go back to Genesis 5. That was written only about 600 years after the fall.

Where are the originals? Also, who is going to read these books that Moses wrote? The Egyptian slaves? They were illiterate. There was no reason to write anything down until the Jewish history was compiled in 500 BC. Moses was raised in the Pharaoh's household so he probably knew how to write in Egyptian, but certainly not Hebrew - the language wasn't even developed enough to be written, yet.

So what language did they speak and write, 600 years after the Fall?