Believing without Understanding

Via The Ministry of Progressive Christianity on Facebook. Can you think of examples of this being the case? To me, it immediately calls to mind two issues. One is the view that the text is inerrant, and so a reader with that presupposition may refuse to acknowledge when the text says something that is incorrect or immoral. Another is the view that the text provides supports for one’s worldview, and so evidence that a favorite prooftext means something other than what one assumed it meant may meet with resistance.

Given the photo, perhaps I should add that reading The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version itself suggests that one is less likely to have this particular issue? :)


""these gospels are hardly as long as a Wikipedia article"The Gospels are incredibly longer than ..."

Historical Jesus: The Role Playing Game ..."
"Hmm, I worry seeing Monsanto up there as criticism of them tends to inspired by ..."

By the Company
"I can conclude that you're probably not independently wealthy, and need to do what other ..."

By the Company

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Matthew Funke

    This is closely related to, bust subtly different from, your second possibility: “Believing the Bible” can even cloud your judgment as to what is actually *in* the Bible (or not). When I was a young-Earth creationist, I was *sure* the Bible dictated a fixity of “kinds” *somewhere*. I was also sure that Genesis 1 taught instantaneous creation of things; even though that idea is nowhere to be found in the text, I never failed to see it there.

    • arcseconds

      It’s quite amazing what people can be sure of, but isn’t there (or possibly is there but they’re sure it isn’t), isn’t it?