Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This certainly doesn't surprise me. A new Pew survey finds that atheists and agnostics know more about religion than those who practice religion.
A new survey of Americans' knowledge of religion found that atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons outperformed Protestants and Roman Catholics in answering questions about major religions, while many respondents could not correctly give the most basic tenets of their own faiths.
Some details:
Forty-five percent of Roman Catholics who participated in the study didn't know that, according to church teaching, the bread and wine used in Holy Communion is not just a symbol, but becomes the body and blood of Christ.More than half of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the person who inspired the Protestant Reformation. And about four in 10 Jews did not know that Maimonides, one of the greatest rabbis and intellectuals in history, was Jewish.
The nasty explanation: Of course believers know less about it than non-believers; if they were more educated they'd stop believing. The more reasonable explanation: Non-believers tend to know more about religion because most of them started out as believers and at some point they did some real thinking about the issues, something that the average person in the pews rarely does.
Most people simply are what their parents were. They rarely do any real thinking about their beliefs or engage in study to determine whether those beliefs are true -- they accept it merely because that's what they were taught and they assume it's true. There are exceptions, of course, but that's how the average person tends to operate.
That's why I'm happy to have been raised the way I was, in a religiously divided home. I couldn't just accept what my parents believed because they believed radically different things. It required me to have to think and research and evaluate and I think that benefited me a great deal. For me, the Pew poll was easy and I got 15/15.
Politics
Comments
I looked up the survey questions and the Maimonides was probably the most difficult question on there.
It may have asked one at a time, but in the way it appeared on the paper it was like a matching question. Can you tell me if,
A. Mother Theresa was
B. Joseph Smith Was
C. The Dalai Lama is
D. Maimonides was
Options:
1. Catholic
2. Jewish
3. Buddhist
4. Mormon
5. Hindu
I got it right, but honestly, Maimonides was a matter of elimination. I don't think he's quite as prominent as the others. That's more akin to asking a christian about St. Augustine.
Posted by: Ben P | September 29, 2010 11:18 AM
I'm depressed that anyone who had a public education could get ANY of those wrong.
(Although I will admit, I had to use process of elimination on the Great Awakening question. But I was skooled in Florida, so woe is me.)
Posted by: tawaen | September 29, 2010 11:20 AM
Also, for general information
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Belief_and_Practices/religious-knowledge-questionnaire.pdf The survey
and a shorter 15 question religious quiz
I got 15/15, but 14 and 15 are the only reasonably difficult ones IMO. I'd dispute that Nirvana is solely a buddhist concept, and I'm only passingly familiar with the great awakening.
Posted by: Ben P | September 29, 2010 11:22 AM
It's an easy test though I was kinda lucky to one question right since I guessed on the last question between two possibilities. So easy and with too few questions I'm skeptical it's representative of much of anything.
It also had the type of question where if you answer correctly you are often dinged as being wrong. This time it wasn't a trick, the pedantically right answer was deemed correct. That's a feature of the test, not a bug - just noting how frustrating it is to answer pedantically correct and be told your answer wasn't what the testers were looking. That's happened to me numerous times.
I don't think these test results should allow atheists and agnostics to claim they know more about a particular believer's religion given the sparseness of questions about a particular religion. Instead I'd argue it shows that atheists and agnostics score better on the topic of comparative religion at a very shallow level. Of course the Catholic communion differential does demand our attention.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 29, 2010 11:24 AM
I'm well familiar with this syndrome. I love to engage with believers and zealots, and it gives me great pleasure to usually be more knowledgeable than they are, often turning their own bible against them. It pisses them off something fierce to be brought face to face with their own ignorance.
And as far as I'm concerned, people who choose ignorance and irrationality deserve all the grief we can give them.
Posted by: gary l. day | September 29, 2010 11:24 AM
I had a college professor who said the best way to become an Atheist was to go to Seminary.
Posted by: Dugglebogey | September 29, 2010 11:25 AM
That quiz was surpsingly easy. I'm knowledgeable in many areas, but not in religion or history and I still got an easy 14/15. I am just amazed that anyone could get these very simple answers wrong.
The ironic thing is that I learned about the story of Job mostly from watching South Park, and I've learned of some other religious facts through other secular media.
Posted by: catgirl | September 29, 2010 11:30 AM
I got them all right, but my last answer was a guess between two.
To do well on the survey requires knowing things about several religions, which most religious people would not know. What do Mormons know about Judaism? How many American Christians would recognize a Copt as a Christian, or a Greek Orthodox? How many in the Judaic-Christian-Muslim crowd could say whether the Hindu gods number in the thousands, millions, or billions?
Posted by: 6EQUJ5 | September 29, 2010 11:33 AM
I scored 15/15 on that online quiz as I suspect many regulars here would score.
Re Catholics. Many people who identify as Catholic have very little religious education and never attended church regularly, so they know next to nothing about Catholic religious beliefs. Despite almost complete detachment from religious education and practice, they still maintain that they are Catholic.
Posted by: Dr X | September 29, 2010 11:39 AM
Ha, that's what happened to my father.
I only got 13/15.
I thought the Jewish Sabbath began on Saturday and I wildly guessed on the Great Awakening. But hey, at least now I know there was one.
Posted by: Leni | September 29, 2010 11:41 AM
I wonder how much of this can be put down to the ick factor of the whole cannibalism thing. I never heard that distinction in services, and it might have been mentioned once or twice in the 8+ years of indoctrination/religious instruction. Several people have reacted with horror when I told them what the church's actual doctrine says.
Posted by: BigJ | September 29, 2010 11:48 AM
And surprise, surprise:
Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality.
Shocking.
Posted by: Leni | September 29, 2010 11:50 AM
Isn't it also possible that this study mostly reflects education and income? The authors mention that they control for these things, but there aren't any details, and they probably don't control for the education and income of respondents' families and peers. If people who identify as atheist or agnostic and Mormons are coming from generally higher income and well-educated families and social networks (which seems quite possible), it wouldn't be surprising that they would perform better on the survey.
Posted by: Andy | September 29, 2010 11:53 AM
My spin would be this: atheists have indeed thought about these things and are reasonably knowledgeable.
However, there a gazillion people in the US who have not though about or studied such matters but when called on the phone would identify as Christian--because that's how most Americans self-identify as.
Leaving aside the issue of True Christians, out of scientific curiosity I would like to see the survey repeated with another category: regular church attenders. That's a much smaller percentage of citizens than self-identified Christians.
gary l. day
If that's a challenge, then as a believer and a zealot, I accept.1
------------------
1 I never believe anyone's story that fits the model: I like to engage the opposition, and I routinely slam-dunk them, and they get all flustered. It's a blast! My first approximation is that all such stories are BS.
Posted by: heddle | September 29, 2010 11:54 AM
You know what would be cooler than this?
A test on the Constitution. I'd be particularly interested in the responses from the Quitta from Wassilla and others of her ilk who want to return the country to what the founding fathers intended. (Slavery? Property required to vote? No vote for women? No standing Army?)
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | September 29, 2010 11:55 AM
@gary l. day: I love to engage with believers and zealots, and it gives me great pleasure to usually be more knowledgeable than they are, often turning their own bible against them. It pisses them off something fierce to be brought face to face with their own ignorance.
This is what knowledge of theology is good for. Once I asked some members of the Campus Crusade for Christ about the Filioque clause, and they didn't know what I was talking about. Nor could they explain the nature of the Trinity-- they kept bringing up analogies like the phases of water, and when I tried to logically follow through the mapping (so Jesus is ice?), said "No, not like that".
And once I asked some Jehovah's Witnesses at my door if they still believed God lives in the Pleiades star cluster-- apparently they didn't know.
Posted by: Emily | September 29, 2010 12:00 PM
I studied religion extensively in order to argue with my born-again brother. But his cult told him: "Logic is the tool of the devil."
Then he saw the light and is now an atheist. Whew.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | September 29, 2010 12:02 PM
I scored 14/15, only missing the question about when the Jewish sabbath starts (I guessed Saturday). As easy as the questions on the quiz were, it comes as no surprise to me that non-believers are generally more knowledgeable on the topic of religion than believers.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 29, 2010 12:04 PM
I got a 14/15. The Great Awakening got me too. I had never heard of that one. The rest all seemed pretty easy. When I was forced by an aunt to attend Bible school over the summer at age 10, organized religion pretty much lost all grip over me. Every morning we had to recite passages that we memorized overnight. If you did it correctly you got a ribbon that you wore all day long. I collected all of the ribbons except the big one for memorizing all of the names of the books of the bible - I don't remember ever even being asked to try (too young ?). Anyhow, most of the kids just shouted out whatever they were supposed to memorize. I actually thought about it and found most of it offensive, contradictory and insane. Plthought they were stupid, weird and annoying. us, none of them seem to have ever even heard of other religious texts or ideas. I found them all intellectually void. (Alright, I was ten, I
Posted by: pHred | September 29, 2010 12:04 PM
14/15, missing just the Great Awakening. I thought the Jewish Sabbath was a little tricky. People immediately think that it is Saturday, but it technically begins at sundown Friday.
I wish the quiz would have had more about actual religious beliefs though. Only three of the questions(Nirvana, 10 Commandments and communion) were based on what I would consider religious beliefs. The others were more pure history/mythology and politics. The fact that Moses is the hero of the Exodus myth doesn't give you an insight into the belief systems of Jews, Christians, or Muslims. Anymore than knowing Orpheus was killed by Maenads gives you an insight into the Dionysian mysteries.
When my wife and I argue religion, what people believe is often a sticking point. She has her version of Christianity and it is very different from, say, Pat Robertson's version or the Pope's. So when I say, "Those Christians don't believe X." She literally will quote me chapter and verse where Jesus said X. That's what their book says. But that isn't what the evangelicals *believe*. And it isn't what they learn in church.
X is usually something like being nice or loving your neighbor as yourself or feeding the poor or something like that, usually after I've seen the Pope do something especially stupid like say that condoms cause AIDS. We both get to the same place--that the Pope is a lying bastard who should be arrested and he isn't a patch on the real Emperor Palpatine. She just adds in a bit about the Pope not really following the religion that Jesus founded.
Or whenever I point out that Bush was a Methodist like her, she makes it very clear that the church hierarchy came pretty close to kicking him out because of the Iraq war. And just because he called himself a Methodist doesn't mean he really was.
Posted by: Bob | September 29, 2010 12:05 PM
(sorry - my browser did something really strange). Anyhow, at ten I found them all stupid, weird and annoying. As were many other things at that age, like okra.
Posted by: pHred | September 29, 2010 12:06 PM
I noticed the same thing when I took an Old Testament course in University. The class was filled with religious zealots (mostly Southern Baptists) and religion majors...and six non-believers, who stuck together in "the heathen's corner".
Throughout the class, we unbelievers knew the "text" (that Old Testament thingie) way better than the zealots and religion majors, and got higher grades than the zealots. And the rabbi teaching the course seemed really, REALLY amused by that.
Posted by: OleanderTea | September 29, 2010 12:19 PM
Sadie @ 18:
That was the question which I previously noted required a pedantically correct answer, ". . . when does it begin?". Most non-Jews correctly believe the Shabbat is the seventh day of the week (Saturday), the question is tricky because it's asking when it begins which is a few minutes prior to Friday's sunset. I think many non-Jews know this, but some of us were left wondering what the survey is really asking for in this case.
Fortunately I answered correctly but I've been burned on related questions many times before including an IQ test when applying for a job where my answer was correct and it was marked wrong knocking three points off my supposed IQ.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 29, 2010 12:39 PM
Heddle@14 -- out of scientific curiosity I would like to see the survey repeated with another category: regular church attenders. That's a much smaller percentage of citizens than self-identified Christians.
There is more detail here along with some of the links on that page. Interestingly, when restricting the questions to Christianity, those who identify as Mormons or Evangelicals did better than Atheist/Agnostics. On the other hand, those who were identified as "Highly committed" based on services attendance and their response to importance of religion questions, while doing somewhat better than average, were still well behind the top three scoring groups: Atheist/Agonstics, Jews and Mormons.
Posted by: Dave | September 29, 2010 12:42 PM
Oh, I got 14/15, and then only because I misread one question.
Posted by: Wscott | September 29, 2010 1:42 PM
Forty-five percent of Roman Catholics who participated in the study didn't know that, according to church teaching, the bread and wine used in Holy Communion is not just a symbol, but becomes the body and blood of Christ.
What did you expect? A kid gets dragged to church every Sunday for years, repeatedly sees the bread and wine NOT changing into anything, asks his parents about it (if the parents even mention "transsubstantiation"), and the parents shrug and say, well no, it doesn't REALLY transform, but it's still important so shut up and quit fidgeting or you'll go to Hell. Then, when the kid gets older and keeps on asking questions, the parents say the transformation isn't LITERAL, silly, it's symbolic/spiritual.
This particular point says absolutely NOTHING about Catholics' knowledge of their own doctrine. "Transsubstantiation" is the most easily falsified bit of their doctrine, so of course they won't "know" something that's already been proven false.
I never believe anyone's story that fits the model: I like to engage the opposition, and I routinely slam-dunk them, and they get all flustered. It's a blast! My first approximation is that all such stories are BS.
heddle, your own behavior here has been disproving that "first approximation" for YEARS.
Once I asked some members of the Campus Crusade for Christ about the Filioque clause...
CCC are still around? They're the dumbest of the dumb -- with the possible exception of Chick Tracts.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 29, 2010 1:59 PM
Oh, I see how that works. Those people aren't True
ScotsmenChristians so they don't really count.Posted by: catgirl | September 29, 2010 2:12 PM
I am a believer. I had 14/15. Would have had them all right, but I had my "Awakenings" mixed up.
Posted by: Ellie | September 29, 2010 2:12 PM
Michael,
I also paused on the Shabbat question, only because I considered the possibility that the test-makers themselves were ignorant of the differences between the Gregorian calendar and Jewish calendar which has days ending at sunset every day of the week. In Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods, as far as the locals are concerned, sunset Friday is the end of Friday. In that sense, either answer to the question could be correct because (double pedantically) it is Saturday for Jews following the Jewish calendar.
Use of the Yiddish greeting "Gut Shabbes" is customary beginning on (Western) Friday night. Though I could not possibly be mistaken for an Orthodox Jew, some Orthodox still greet me that way when we pass on the street (and I greet them the same way) on a Friday evening. I don't want steal Shabbat by using the Christian "hello", but I guess I'm too late because Christians already stole and relocated Shabbat.
Posted by: Dr X | September 29, 2010 2:17 PM
Dave #24,
Thanks for the link.
catgirl #27,
Did I say or imply that they were not Christians? [A: NO]
Did I not say that I was specifically not addressing that? [A: YES]
Did I not say "out of scientific curiosity I would like to see the result for those who attend church regularly?" (as opposed to: "real Christians") [A: YES]
Can you resist leveling, a la Pavlov, the charge of "No True Scotsman?" [A: It appears not]
Posted by: heddle | September 29, 2010 2:31 PM
I'd dispute that Nirvana is solely a buddhist concept
But Pearl Jam is Buddhist all the way.
Posted by: Just Sayin' | September 29, 2010 2:35 PM
"And about four in 10 Jews did not know that Maimonides, one of the greatest rabbis and intellectuals in history, was Jewish"
And I wondered how the ultra-orthodoxes and religious nationalists managed to reconcile their anti-arabic hatred with the fact that the most influencial jewish theologian was Saladin's buddy: ignorance sure is bliss.
Posted by: Laurent Weppe | September 29, 2010 2:51 PM
It's hard to believe any adult not in a coma could miss more than 1-2 of these, and yet...many of them do. Oh, well, what's that percentage of Americans who think the sun goes around the Earth?
Posted by: MS | September 29, 2010 3:54 PM
"Oh, well, what's that percentage of Americans who think the sun goes around the Earth?"
Isn't it about 20? And wasn't Bush's approval rating about 20 percent at the end of his second shit, I mean term, in office? And 20 percent of Americans think Obama is a Muslim.
Hey, I think I'm starting to see a pattern here!
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | September 29, 2010 4:17 PM
I got the Great Awakening question wrong too in spite of (or because of) the fact that I do know something about it. I chose Charles Finney because I'm familiar with him due to my interest in local history: I live in the "burned-over district" of central New York. It somehow escaped me that that was the Second Great Awakening (the question asked for the First); I didn't recall hearing the term Great Awakening applied to the 18th-century Massachusetts preachers, although I knew Jonathan Edwards's sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". Interesting that they'd put a difficult question at the end of so many easy ones.
Posted by: Vasha | September 29, 2010 4:17 PM
I have a minor quibble on the Joseph Smith question. They asked what religion he belonged to, not which religion he founded. "Almighty Dollar" should have been an option.
/wiseass
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 29, 2010 4:22 PM
From what I remember about this specific question, this result may have been screwed up because it contained a third option: "other." One answer was that the bread and wine was "actually" the body and blood of Christ, one answer was that it was "symbolic" -- and then there was an opportunity to shove something in the middle. Such as, it's still bread and wine in outer worldly appearance, but in special hidden inner substance reality of forms it's literal and true. Transubstantiation is outside the box.
Hm. If you want a clear answer, just don't give a religious person the option of answering "other." I don't know, maybe it didn't make any difference -- but it could have. Did that 45% all put down it was a symbol, or were there 45% who got the answer "wrong?"
heddle #14 wrote:
But wouldn't this contradict what you wrote in the first part of your post -- that most believers have not thought about or studied religion in any depth? To this group I'd add in the reams of people who think they have studied their beliefs a great deal -- but have only done so in a completely uncritical environment of mutual reinforcement. They've never had to actually defend anything they believed to someone who didn't believe it too -- either because they're sheltered, or because they live in an area where people just don't bring up religion if there's any possibility of disharmony.
That's why I generally give such stories the benefit of the doubt. Given what little I've seen in meatspace, the internet seems to contain the cream of the crop.
Posted by: Sastra | September 29, 2010 5:18 PM
I'm a third generation solid atheist, and I got 15/15.
Posted by: anandine | September 29, 2010 5:27 PM
@Abby Normal: I have a minor quibble on the Joseph Smith question. They asked what religion he belonged to, not which religion he founded. "Almighty Dollar" should have been an option.
Actually, what it asks for is "Joseph Smith's religion" which could just as well mean "religion founded by Joseph Smith" as "religion Joseph Smith belonged to"-- the latter does more readily spring to mind, but the former makes sense if you know that Joseph Smith started some religion.
Posted by: Emily | September 29, 2010 5:35 PM
Atheist, raised Roman Catholic (in industrial West of Scotland). I scored 13 honestly, 14 including a guess. I got Maimonides as Jewish, but only by elimination (stuff I'd known, but forgotten - with a name like that we sure isn't Hindu). Had no clue about the players in the First Great Awakening (nor second, nor...) - minor parochial religious upsets were not part of my history or religious studies curricula at high school or college (I did know it wasn't Billy Graham, if that's a consolation!)
I admit I was surprised at how poorly people scored in general -- I thought to myself that the questions must have been quite challenging. Actually (and as many have said here) quite the opposite, and I do not consider myself especially well read or knowledgeable about religion.
Posted by: TonyC | September 29, 2010 5:47 PM
I also did the full test... the only questions I got wrong were those mentioned above.
Man, those respondents must be dumb as rocks (even the 'best' only averaged 21 out of 32!).
Posted by: TonyC | September 29, 2010 5:49 PM
I never believe anyone's story that fits the model: I like to engage the opposition, and I routinely slam-dunk them, and they get all flustered. It's a blast! My first approximation is that all such stories are BS.
Then you need to troll on forums more often. In my experience, the most common theists to show up in a thread are the evangelical Christians with a very thin grasp of theology, science, the Bible or history. They make bold claims, repeat a few well worn maxims and usually disappear quickly upon being trounced. They are easy to pick apart. You'll occasionally have someone who has more than a passing knowledge of their own religion. They may or may not debate well, but at least you don't have to show them what their own denomination teaches before getting to something interesting. It's exceedingly rare to find someone more knowledgeable than that.
For the record, the only thing I missed was the question on the "Great Awakening." That period of Protestant history was never germane to my interests.
Posted by: ThatDude | September 29, 2010 5:50 PM
Such as, it's still bread and wine in outer worldly appearance, but in special hidden inner substance reality of forms it's literal and true. Transubstantiation is outside the box.
Actually, its rather firmly inside a box, just not a box (Aristotellian Metaphysics) that is in common use any more.
Hm. If you want a clear answer, just don't give a religious person the option of answering "other." I don't know, maybe it didn't make any difference -- but it could have. Did that 45% all put down it was a symbol, or were there 45% who got the answer "wrong?"
I dont have answers for the Catholics specifically, but according to this 92% of people overall selected one of the two answers, and the other 8% answered "Dont Know". Apparenly less than 1% answered either "Other" or refused to answer.
Posted by: Dave | September 29, 2010 5:57 PM
I just hope that Canny and friends won't have to pass a test to get into heaven when they die.
Posted by: Paen | September 29, 2010 6:46 PM
The Christian Science Monitor has the full set of 32 questions, all of which I got right (modesty isn't one of my virtues). Both my nephew, a former evangelical turned atheist, and my mother's caregiver got 8 wrong. Neither knew who Maimonides was nor that Indonesia is predominantly Muslim.
I find it puzzling that so many Catholics don't know their own doctrine; don't they have to learn the catechism in order to be confirmed?
Posted by: bad Jim | September 29, 2010 8:50 PM
Actually, transubstantiation has nothing to do with Confirmation preparation and confirmation is not required of Catholics. You learn about transubstantiation in the second grade when you're preparing for first communion (age 7-8). I would imagine that almost all adults who attended Catholic parochial school, except for people of very low intelligence, got the transubstantiation question right. I can't even imagine a Catholic high school graduate would get it wrong.
Catholics who went to public schools are entirely different story. They did not memorize the catechism or take tests or get slapped around if they didn't learn what was taught. They had Catholic lite education, more of a formality so they would be eligible to receive first communion in the second grade. The nuns had low expectations for these kids because they had very little opportunity to control or affect the lives the public school kids. Many of the public school kids stopped going to religious instruction after first communion (age 7 or 8).
My two youngest brothers went to public schools and they stopped religious ed after first communion. Neither of them was confirmed.
I emailed my youngest brother today and he didn't get the transubstantiation question right. I'm not surprised. I'd bet neither brother who went to public school would know the answer, while I am absolutely certain that my brothers who went to Catholic school would know the answer.
Posted by: Dr X | September 29, 2010 10:02 PM
The funny thing is that on questions relating to Christianity and the Bible, only evangelicals and Mormons scored better than atheists/agnostics, and Jews come fourth. That's sad.
As a first generation atheist, I got 15/15 on the online test, although the questions were all very easy (even more so when you consider that it's multiple choice). On the entire 32 question test, the only one I had to guess that Maimonides was Jewish (I'd never heard of him before), but I did guess it correctly.
Hinduism slaps on an additional definition to nirvana: the unity with the supreme being. Additionally, the doctrine of nirvana was thought up by Buddhists, which the Hindus later adopted to their own religion. I agree with you, however, that the question is misleading.
Posted by: Blotto von Bismarck | September 29, 2010 11:43 PM
I never believe anyone's story that fits the model: I like to engage the opposition, and I routinely slam-dunk them, and they get all flustered. It's a blast!
It's nice to know that it's not just his religion he's deluded about.
Posted by: Aquaria | September 30, 2010 8:26 AM
Just so you know, I got a perfect score on The Christian Science Monitor's religious quiz, and...........drum roll.........I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords! I am a student of God's Holy Word, the Bible, for it is my guidebook for life! I have surrendered all to Him, and His Holy Spirit indwells me! What's significant is whose I am! Gather ye rosebuds while ye may and live for Jesus this fine day!
Posted by: Ginny Bain Allen | October 3, 2010 12:50 PM
Ummm Ginny Jesus-freak, shouldn't you be at church today? Or spreading the "good word?" Instead of trolling one of these evil, atheist* blogs on the Lord's day?
----------
*This evil atheist got a 15 out of 15. ;o)
Posted by: dogmeat | October 3, 2010 1:01 PM
Actually, dogmeat, home church is a blessing, if you must know! And, I don't think it's trolling if, when I google my name, this page comes up! I did spread the good news of Jesus here today! :)
Posted by: Ginny Bain Allen | October 3, 2010 1:07 PM
I was really hoping that Ginny Bain Allen was a Poe, but her blog is either 1) a clever decoy, 2) a really bad Poe, or 3) genuine - and I fear the third is true. On behalf of my fellow rational Christians¹, I apologize for Ginny's nonsense.
__________________________________________________
¹Actual numbers unknown; YMMV.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | October 3, 2010 1:13 PM
I find it puzzling that so many Catholics don't know their own doctrine; don't they have to learn the catechism in order to be confirmed?
I don't find it puzzling. It's just common sense. Imagine if someone told you bread and wine turned into Jesus. You would think they meant it figuratively because if they meant it literally then they couldn't possibly be that stupid. (Because they dress up fancy with fancy hats and things and they act all wise and stuff.)
Posted by: 386sx | October 3, 2010 1:15 PM
Ginny Bain Allen-
I don't care whether it's trolling, but it is preaching. And I don't allow that here. If you want to actually engage in debate, I'd be happy to have you here. If all you're going to do is leave substance-free comments cheerleading for Jesus, I'm simply going to ban you for being a waste of electrons.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 3, 2010 1:36 PM
Actually, Ed, those who live in genuine, thoughtful relationship with Jesus Christ, not just "practice" religion, can answer all of the questions posed by the Christian Science Monitor. Obviously, those who are practicing religion, like those who practice medicine, haven't gotten it right yet. They have not chosen to follow Jesus for themselves, so they are not yet Christian. Nobody can slide into heaven on their parents' faith. Many who have called themselves Christians through the ages have not been. Those involved in the Inquisition and the Crusades, as well as the Catholic cardinals and priests who have raped young boys, were NOT Christians. Those who have studied the Bible with an open heart and mind have gleaned precious knowledge and wisdom that only comes from time and effort put into such careful, diligent, open-minded study. I was raised in both my father's Catholic faith as well as my mother's Baptist. However, neither of them had surrendered their allegiance to Jesus. As a college student, living away from home for the first time, I chose, with prompting from the Holy Spirit, to believe in my heart and confess with my mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord. As Anselm of Canterbury said, “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this I believe - that unless I believe I shall not understand.” Thankful am I that, according to your hypothesis, Ed, I am not an average unthinking person. Hopefully, these comments are substantive enough to be worthy of the electrons?
Posted by: Ginny Bain Allen | October 4, 2010 1:08 PM
Not really. All you're saying is that ignorant and/or evil people aren't Christian by your own definition. Which is convenient for you, but nobody else has any reason to agree because that is a classic use of the No True Scotsman fallacy
Posted by: Gretchen | October 4, 2010 1:23 PM
Gretchen, your comment is not true. The Bible clearly declares who is and who is not a follower of Jesus!
Christian Cynic, who exactly have you dubbed as rational Christians, and why must you make an apology on my behalf?
Posted by: Ginny Bain Allen | October 5, 2010 7:39 AM
Ginny Bain Allen - "...The Bible clearly declares who is and who is not a follower of Jesus!"
Citations Please. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | October 5, 2010 8:41 AM
Ginny,
Unless you are either psychic or want to claim that Christians are sinless, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether the people you mentioned who did bad things had committed themselves to Jesus or not. And last I checked, the Bible says nothing about the test of being a true Christian being the ability to ace quizzes.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 5, 2010 1:00 PM
@58 DJ, as wise 86 year old Polycarp, told the throngs waiting to witness him become a martyr for Jesus Christ, "If you'd like to learn what Christians believe, set a time and I will tell you. I won't cheapen the teachings of Jesus by trying to persuade such a throng."
@59 Gretchen, I most certainly do have a way of knowing whether or not the aforementioned folks were doing what they did in the name of Jesus. Either they were back-slidden or had fallen away, for folks do not commit such heinous sins if they are truly following Jesus. He was infallible, and none of His followers are, but... we do not continue habitually sinning if we have surrendered our allegiance to Him. People relish any excuse to rake Christians over the coals, and to not choose to believe in and obey Him for they want to live selfishly for themselves. I keep my eyes on Him for He alone is perfect! Given enough time spent together with anyone, it's inevitable that we will let each other down.
A true Christian acing quizzes? How in the hairy heck did you come up with that assumption??? I'm thankful to hear you read the Bible! :)
Posted by: Ginny Bain Allen | October 6, 2010 5:53 PM