Where I say "to keep us from God", I wanted to say "to keep us from *believing* in God" but couldn't say it that way because of the usual Q-box 110-character limit.
TWH 08132006
2006-08-13 14:00:03 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
chapelite, I acknowledge your point, but the fact is there is just so much space in the Q box. I would have liked to add the qualifier "some" before the word Evangelicals" followed by the word "preachers", but I couldn't. I think the phrasing can be interpreted as either"all or "some". That said, I stand by my well-formed Q and ask that you and others do your best to answer the Q asked- not some version which your welcome to ask if you want to. All Q's have built-in premises and some of them, unfortunately, are read into the Q by the askers. I try to pose my Q's sharply and I seek real answers rather than Q criticisms which avoid answering the Q constructively.
TWH 08132006 8:48PM
2006-08-13 14:48:55 · update #1
Chapilite, the preachers and teachers you mention obviously don't belong the subclass of Evangelicalsthat I am referring to. Or at least, I hope they don't. For now, s I am willing to temporarily rely on your testimony which seems to be, on the face of it, well-informed opinion.
2006-08-13 14:56:32 · update #2
Final comment befor picking the best answer.
Folks, if all I have done is to ask a Q, why then do so many answerers need to infer things about my person or my motives. How is that relevant to the focus of the Q, which is the way some Evangelicals speak of all human knowledge as a bad desire nourished by the Devil to keep one from believing in God? TWH 08202006
2006-08-20 06:16:38 · update #3
Chapelite a week has passed and I have to pick best answer. I've reread your reply and do not think your answer made any attempt to answer the Q asked instead it was an attempt to discredit the Q by Questioning the validity of the Q. That is a cheap shot trying to set up an alternative to my Q by citing a few counterexamples. I based my Q on TV preachers I have watched from time to time on Sundays and on my personal attendance at sermons at local baptist churches. My Q was not about those preachers who don't think the way my Q suggests, but it is about the preachers who do. TWH 08202006
2006-08-20 06:35:00 · update #4
They say that so you won't do any research and find out how they've messed up the real message.
2006-08-13 14:04:47 · answer #1 · answered by R. F 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Solomon was a very wise and knowledgable king. But even he realized, as written in Ecclesiastes, that the pursuit of knowledge was not the way to find happiness-he also learned wealth and power were not the way either. And not that any of these are wrong, happiness is found in the simpleness of things like enjoying a day or meal with family and friends.
Someone above said something to the fact that the more people learn, the more they disbelieve in God. I have been noticing just the opposite. The more scientist try to prove the Bible and events did not happen, the more they believe it is true-because we are finding more and more evidence that these "tales" really are scientifically proven! Knowledge by itself is not bad, but what you do with it can be bad.
2006-08-13 21:18:01 · answer #2 · answered by jazzzame 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As an Evangelical, I take exception to your a priori assumption that we say "all knowledge & its pursuit is the Devil's way to keep us from God." I know of no Evangelicals who claim that. However, let's take a look at some Evangelicals and see just how broad of a brush you just painted with.
John Harvard, the primary benefactor to the college that bears his name, was a Puritan preacher. He bequeathed his library to the college in Cambridge "To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches." He didn't want an uneducated clergy or laity. Hardly the example of one who says "all knowledge & its pursuit is the Devil's way to keep us from God."
C.S. Lewis, an Oxford professor, was an agnostic for most of his early life. Came to Christ as an adult, and was a rather prolific writer of apologetics. Even today, his books are considered classics. He pursued knowledge, taught knowledge, embraced knowledge. But more importantly knew the Author of knowledge.
Josh McDowell, was another professor, who set out to debunk Christianity. After doing 700 hours of research, he concluded that the evidence demanded a verdict. He became a Christian, and then penned a book with the title, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict."
Simon Greenleaf was a lawyer, and a founder of the Harvard Law School. He set out to evaluate the biblical accounts hoping to refute their claims. After exhaustive research, he determined that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ was overwhelming, and would stand scrutiny in a court of law.
None of these men could be considered as anything less than intelligent. And yet they claimed a rock solid faith in Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. Besides, God isn't looking for people with worldly intelligence, because He says, "For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed, but it is God's power to us who are being saved. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will reject." Where is the wise person? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? God has turned the wisdom of the world into nonsense, hasn't he? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, God decided through the nonsense of our preaching to save those who believe." (I Corinthians 1:18-21)
I could go on to so many other intelligent people, either from antiquity or contemporary times, who pursued truth and knowledge with a passion. There are countless believers who seek knowledge, and also love their Lord. These are just a few examples to show you how incredibly biased your assumptions are.
2006-08-13 21:28:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
That is interpreted to mean that knowledge is the best way to keep their followers under subjugation.
Thinking independently and with a rational mind is the last thing evangelical leaders want the parishioners to have.
It has absolutely nothing to do with religion or the faith they profess to have. It has everything to do with control, however.
Best Wishes!
2006-08-13 21:06:06 · answer #4 · answered by Specious λ Neurotica 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't know, but think you are overstating and generalizing. Particularly when science and knowledge lead us to knowling more about the universe and God's master plan.
You do realize that nearly all of the great historical figures in science were really just trying to know more about God and his creation and that's why they were seeking?
So, I gotta go with the opposite.
2006-08-13 21:06:06 · answer #5 · answered by TheSlayor 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They use a scripture that says that if you are wise in the ways of men you cannot be wise in the ways of god. It's a scam to keep the sheep in the flock.
2006-08-13 21:05:36 · answer #6 · answered by Catspaw 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A good question.
Ask them how their denomination started if not for the search for knowledge they believed hidden by priests of the elder christian church.
Separatists can be so hypocritical.
2006-08-13 21:10:06 · answer #7 · answered by bobkgin 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Maybe they fear that with knowledge we will loose faith, but that's not true. Science does not cancel out God, and God encourages science. I think they must doubt their own faith (but keep them dollars rolling in ok?) Sorry that was rude, may God forgive me for that.
2006-08-13 21:07:26 · answer #8 · answered by arvecar 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm not sure which "Evangelicals" you've been talking to.
Can you be a little more specific?
2006-08-13 21:06:05 · answer #9 · answered by wild1handy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They don't like people thinking for themselves because then they might critically look at the flimsy arguments for their religion.
2006-08-13 21:04:14 · answer #10 · answered by nondescript 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋