Why All The Details?

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
When I asked about the "In His Image" statement, Not Ready referred us to a website that went into lengthy intricate detail about the subject, describing all the various, Christian theories and what was right and wrong about them. But what is the point of all this? Because even devout Christians seem to agree that God will not be angry or punish you if you get these details wrong.

I said before that one problem with being religous is that it wastes time. Time that could be used for more productive things. That's been countered with the idea that earthly things don't matter as much as the afterlife. But even if you accept that, it doesn't apply once you have gotten the basics down. The things relevant to that afterlife. Spending inordinate time trying to figure out details that even God doesn't care if you know, sounds an awful lot like an excuse to escape any responsibility to improve the world. And you think God would applaud you for that?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post3647955

[David Sklansky]

"Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

There are no unnecessary Biblical doctrines."

So what happens to those who don't study the details or to those who do study but get it wrong (eg BluffTHIS).

[ QUOTE ]
Why did you add in ethics? Why isn't anybody answering my simple question about learning debatable and unnecessary religious facts or doctrine?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to state what I saw as an implied premise in your argument (obviously I got it wrong). I still answered your question - I enjoy religious debate in the first case (and that's enough reason for me to continue doing it). As an unintended side effect, I am also better at improving the world through my pondering on religious dogma.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So what happens to those who don't study the details or to those who do study but get it wrong (eg BluffTHIS).


[/ QUOTE ]

Salvation is by faith in Christ, not knowing the Bible by heart. God allots to each a measure of faith and ability. There is a huge amount of the Bible with which I only have a passing familiarity, but the longer I live the more I learn from it. Each is capable of a certain amount and God is just in judging.

The particular doctrine involved here, the image of God in man, is a very helpful study for Christians, as it identifies us to a certain extent, thus answering one of the most basic questions of the human soul. There are other uses as well.

If I were still a Christian, I'd be ashamed that no Christian has given you a (perhaps the) good answer to your question.

[Darryl_P]

My answer is very simple and similar to bunny's and NotReady's, ie. I don't think those things are unnecessary or a waste of time. Of course I'm open-minded and willing to listen to reasons as to why they might be, but it looks like that's off topic.

As to what happens to believers who don't do those things, I don't know for sure but the key is what one feels in one's heart and not the specifics of what one does with one's time IMO.

BTW Sklansky makes a lousy God because the real God always answers my questions and doesn't behave as if He's too good for me, even though He of all beings surely could do that and nobody would question Him.

[jester710]

A few things:

1. Just because God won't necessarily "punish" you if you get certain things wrong doesn't mean they don't matter. Also, just because an issue isn't central to salvation does not mean it's not important. Disobedience in issues unrelated to salvation could lead to punishment from God, even if that punishment is just the withholding of possible rewards. For example, failure to tithe probably won't send you to hell, but it could keep God from blessing your finances.

2. Many of these issues aren't important in and of themselves, but serve as building blocks for other issues and arguments. The "image of God" argument, for instance, becomes important for anyone arguing against evolution (you could say that this is just a further waste of time, and I'm sure any scientists in Kansas would agree).

Most of this stuff doesn't really seem like it matters, especially when people get bogged down by a single Scripture or something mentioned in passing. However, when these individual Scriptures become central in heated debates (e.g., those condemning homosexuality), their importance is clear. Personally, I think that when these things become that important, it only serves to prove the OP's point.

[RJT]

David,

Ok, I hadn’t realized you were limiting your question to the “details” issue. I did just skim your post - my mistake to think you were asking the same question you had asked before in posts just now in a different format. This is a good question.

Many, perhaps even most, practicing believers don’t get into all the details. Those who want to know more and study the theology of it all, I think, will say it strengthens their faith. It also helps them to know God better. This is a very general answer. I will try to think about it some more tomorrow to maybe expand on it.

For now, let me use a few analogies. It is like poker - it is easy to learn, but hard to master. It is also like reading a great novel. One read is not enough to get the full appreciation of the text.

RJT

p.s. To respond to one of the remarks on this thread: I am fairly certain that if you studied the Religion, you would not convert. I am also fairly certain that having studied it, you would not see it as the distraction to geniuses doing their work the way you do now. Nor that geniuses cannot choose Religion after studying it.

I am at a disadvantage in giving my opinion to this, because I don’t hang with any geniuses. But, I do not really think that geniuses come to the conclusion that there is no God all that much. I think they are like Asimov and say they aren’t going to waste their time on the issue. If you can give some examples that this is not the case it would be helpful. The only real example I have is Bertrand Russell. And from what I remember of “Why I am not Christian” he really had no clue about Christianity. He may have been right about the Church at the time in the things he spoke of. But, the theology, I think he didn’t really study (or if he did, he got it wrong.) Tomorrow or the next few days, I will re-read some it and see if I can give you examples, if you are interested.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I refuse to get into this debate. It has nothing to do with my question. Just forget about the part about improving the world in my original post. I just want to know why people waste their time on the details.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Why did you add in ethics? Why isn't anybody answering my simple question about learning debatable and unnecessary religious facts or doctrine?

[/ QUOTE ]

But see David, a lot of the reason for the "details" that are left after those pertaining to eternal salvation (the afterlife), has to do with our life on earth, which includes improving that life and the ethics of our relations with each other. And while that life is not as important as the afterlife of our immortal souls, it is important because it determines the state of our afterlife. The "details" tell us how we should live ethically, and also how to make this a better world for all (the subject matter of your African children threads).

Plus there is another simple reason for details. Since we view our beliefs on religion as truth, then that necessarily will often lead to further "details". Same as with mathematical and physical truths.

(P.S. I have to go attend to one of those "details" now by attending morning Mass. It's a holy day of obligation like Sunday, The Feast of All Saints.)

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
But, I do not really think that geniuses come to the conclusion that there is no God all that much. I think they are like Asimov and say they aren’t going to waste their time on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty accurate I'd say. I'd like to note, though, that this position leans very strongly towards "no God" being most likely true, otherwise one would be more motivated to "waste his time" on the issue. I suppose there are some who take a sort of Deist slant on the position. I think this is a pretty useless distinction, though.