The C.C.O.I. (Christian Cult Of Ignorance) and Willful Ignorance

There are differing philosophies within Christianity itself. For example, lets take the topic of Sex and the Liberal Christian you will see the thought processes of the differing left/right ideologies within mainline Protestantism.This is an interesting article by Timothy Simpson. Personally, I am a self professed moderate in this regard, as I am too chicken to commit to either extreme.So far....

What is the difference between unexamined belief and willful ignorance?

To try to pick pieces parts out of the Bible as you have done is, IMHO, as wrong as the Biblical Christians quotemining the same book for their purposes. Instead, what is needed is to teach the stories in toto, tell the whole tale including the basis and purpose of the creation of the tales.The Bible is an anthology of anthologies, written, edited, redacted and revised by many people over many centuries, moving from oral tradition to written tradition to revised tradition to compiled tradition. It is a complex work of many people.The answer, IMHO is not to condemn the tales or to create the "Evil Bible" but rather even more education so that people can see the stories within the broader context. Perhaps the term does not exist. I was assuming that Protestant dogma varies from church to church. We disagree on certain issues....
for instance, I believe in God with a high degree of confidance
but you point out that though I may believe that God exists, I cannot know that God exists.I was always raised to believe that God is knowable.I will agree that to claim to know something is a dangerous place to be when religious fundamentalism is involved.So what do you believe about the Trinity and the idea of a Holy Spirit?

okI agree with you so far.I also agree that the opening post was poorly written.Why don't you re frame our discussion?In your reply to me, ask me some questions and redirect our focus as we discuss various issues.

I think that what I was trying to say is that some Christians hold on to dogmas and heresy that they have been taught...thus they are ignorant but only willfully so because they refuse to allow science to be their guiding light.You will note the cut and paste response that I had for you in the Is It Science thread on Creationist persistence.Just for everyone's information, I am not a Biblical Creationist, but I do believe that God initially created everything, and foreknew the character of each human.Edited by Phat, : smilie

I was talking with a Theology student today and was telling him of some of my debates at EvC. When I brought your beliefs up, he pointed me towards Pelagianism.Without knowing too much of it, I read the Wiki article and it seemed to fit much of your beliefs to a tee. Any comments?

Do you believe that it is not sac religious to question every great mind that formed the dogma of organized religion? If so, I suppose I agree, but PaulK even goes so far as to state that Jesus was wrong! To me, that borders on audaciousness.Of course, I understand that it makes sense to say that nobody really knows anything more about God than they (humanity) ever did. Traditionally and of course dogmatically, humans have established beliefs, creeds, and statements of faith down throughout the ages.You have asserted quite properly that it is always good to question anything that has been proposed or taught from humans to humans.Some of what you say baffles me a bit, but I suppose it is due to two reasons.

I do tend to skim material and am not a serious student of either Theology or Philosophy. I am just a Bobblehead with an inquiring mind!

​

I forget that you do not fear questioning the dogma of traditional religion.

​

Jar writes:

​

I believe there is no "Original Sin".

​

the belief in some GOE Original Sin makes God evil and would today get God sued for creating an "Attractive Nuisance."

​

But how could we humans have the audacity to label God as anything other than God? Can't we presuppose that He (or She) is not only the uncaused first cause but is by very nature not evil? In an "attractive nuisance" litigation, whom would we get to be the judge? Is not the default position that God is the final judge and arbitrator in all matters?

​

Jar writes:

​

As I said above, your post is classic Christian Cult of Ignorance. It is the retreat to labels and shows willful ignorance of my beliefs. I can say that because you have in the past repeated the key points I list above back to me, so I know that you knew them. Yet you were ready to willfully ignore what you knew to grab onto a label that you believed you could apply to me instead of actually thinking the issue through.

Yes, you are right in that I usually approach a debate with the sole intention of winning, even though I have no idea why it matters. The primary purpose of a debate is to hopefully frame an issue and allow others who read it to hopefully be so inspired as to think further on the matters at hand.

​

Anyway....enough jabberwocky!

​

I received some free literature from Steve Brown who is probably categorized as a bona fide member of the greater Bobblehead community!

​

He is no slouch theologically, but I will admit that his website does offer many things for sale and so could see where his motives are questionable. (willfully ignorant, though? I still dont quite understand why people would intentionally be willfully ignorant!) Brown comes across as quite folksy.

​

Anyway, Brown brings up the following points in one of his latest articles:

​

What are your rights as a believer?

​

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HUMAN (Matthew 9:36 & Psalm 103:14)

​

In some Christian circles it almost goes without saying that real Christians don't sin (or, if they do, they can't let anyone know). The fact is high, unrealistic expectations can kill you. They are dangerous to your health. God works in a process, and if you have the expectation of being at the end of the process before you have gone through the process, you are going to suffer great disappointment. God isn't finished with you yet.

​

Perfection is not attainable in this world. If you think it is, you are going to end up a neurotic Christian. Instant goodness, instant power and instant perfection...It simply doesn't work that way. While you ought to feel properly guilty when you don't measure up to God's standard, you ought to be properly relieved to know that you didn't surprise God when you didn't measure up to his standard, and that he has made provision for you at the foot of the cross.

​

He goes on to list more "rights" that Christians have:

​

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE RIGHT (Galatians 4:16)

​

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG (Acts 10:13-15)

​

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FAIL (John Mark's experience--Acts 13:13, 15:37-39 & 2 Timothy 4:11)

​

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE OFFENSIVE (Galatians 2:13-14)

​

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO THINK, ACT & BELIEVE AS GOD LEADS YOU (2 Corinthians 3:17)

​

All of this is found in this article.

​

My question to you is if you believe that Brown is teaching willful ignorance, how is he doing it?

​

Another question: If we are the judges of what is and is not enlightenment (the opposite of willful ignorance) how is it that we were given this charge rather than the Bible?

​

Edited by Phat, : clarification

​

Edited by Phat, : revision of post

Yes, indeed.While many of the fundamentalist Christians at EvC have long since regarded you as an insufferable heretic, I took a little time to actually read some of the stuff that you say and contrast it with the beliefs of the established churches. This website provided a neat synopsis of what the Episcopals believe, and I found some of the points similar to what you have been explaining to us here at EvC. To wit: This contrasts with what I was taught at that Charismatic Church that I once attended. They maintained that "getting saved" meant that no longer would God be a mere concept but that Jesus came into my heart and was thus known. I suppose that they would defend the concept of a knowable God by quoting Paul: I am not making a point by providing this quote(mine), but I am saying that this is probably one scripture that the charismatic evangelicals would use in defending the idea that God is knowable.I actually like some of what this website says that the Episcopals believe, however. More..... You have often pointed out the statement made by The Clergy Letter Project and I think that they have a point when they say that Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.You always tell me to read the Bible in context and not to simply quote mine from it. The Rev. Canon Ronald Osborne, who wrote that link, said this: In closing, I wanted to ask you a question that you often ask me. This is a question for any spiritual truth seeker to ask themselves.When attempting to convey a truth or a parable from the bible, tradition, or any other source and proclaim it as wisdom from God, we need to ask ourselves: How Do You Know It Is God?My question to you is: In your quest for testing your beliefs and affirming some things and rejecting others, how do you determine what is and is not of God?Where would someone start?The charismatics would simplistically affirm that Scripture interprets Scripture but to me this is a non-answer.What do you think?

So would you presuppose that God is reasonable, logical and real? Do you agree that evidence of God is to be found through observing nature?Do you believe that God can ever be known personally?I would maintain that God is personal to me, but if you asked me how I know that it is God, I could only say that I have to start by presupposing God to have some attributes such as Love, Intelligence, and Consistency.Am I making a mistake by presupposing anything?

Lets address criticism for a moment.At EvC, I have observed that many of your critics assert that you do not know the Spirit of God...that you seemingly have no clue what the impartation of the Spirit is.I know that you will ask me what that means, and I wish that God would impart a quick answer to me! Basically, some folks believe that humanity is aware of God but that some of us have become more enlightened by accepting God into our hearts and minds. The argument would then be that only those who have this spirit of God become sons of God, while the rest of the folks are left out in the cold.I used to believe this dogma until I realized that the ones who were supposed to have the importation of exclusivity had no better insight or revelation than anyone else.My question: Why do you believe that a God who chose only some of the people (or who foreknew that only some would choose)would thus be an evil God?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

What if God foreknows who will choose Him yet still allows for the decision to be independently made?What id God foreknows the results, allows it to happen not so much for punishment as for discipline, and allows some to choose wrongly for reasons yet unknown?Perhaps the second group who chooses wrongly will get another chance on down the road.....

I suppose that I will take a stab at this:I was always taught that God was with everyone yet only became personally known to us after we accepted Him (or Her).....I was also taught that salvation was necessary to complete ones purpose and life.You know much of the dogma that I was taught....and you have pointed out many of the flaws and ignorances involved in the thinking process.I have been accused of always reading what others believe and not having an original belief of my own.This is true in that I blindly accepted what I was taught and never questioned the validity of it.I have been studying Universalism a little bit...and comparing it with what one minister is saying to me.One thing I don't understand is the evil God thing you keep bringing up.Lets discuss it

Well...yes.
After all, He has to create everything!One thing that He does not create, however, is my thinking ability...does He?
I mean, if He creates every thought that I thought, think, or will think, it is no longer I that think.But for the purpose of your question, yes. He does and has created all that is.

Well, I suppose that If God exists in the eternal past, the immediate present, and the future, He will have to know what I will eventually think! Some folks say that He does not know since we have not yet decided... This is taken from this link....and yes, I am still thinking about my beliefs even as I talk with you. I have not yet concluded what exactly I believe. But...for the purpose of this question, God does ultimately know what I will eventually decide. (I believe)

Yes, Regis.

I don't know. I'm not God. But my belief is that if there is such a place as Hell and if hell was never created for humans but only for fallen angels or reprobate mentalities, I would imagine that if a person died today with a reprobate mentality they would end up in Hell....however, God always has veto power.If we believe that everyone is saved initially by Gods Grace, the Satanist would not have to jump through theological hoops...they would have to acknowledge God as sovereign over their free will, however.Also, I couldn't imagine a Satanist doing their best by idolizing Satan and all that that belief traditionally stands for.Who am I to judge, however?I suppose that Gods Grace could extend to anyone and everyone.