I remember being a kid at a church camp retreat, and I asked the question, “If the only way to get into heaven is to believe in Jesus, what happened to all the people who never heard of him before? Like people in the Americas before missionaries came over and people who just never heard of him?”
My youth pastor told me that I shouldn’t be concerning myself with such things, to just believe in God, and he kind of insulted me dismissively.
Basically, I too was taught to never question the Bible, that doing so was bad news, and blah blah blah.
Catholic here. Like other posters above, I went to Catholic schools (through my first year of college) and never, ever felt like we were supposed to believe that the Bible is a science textbook. We were taught about evolution in grade school bio. And then I went to a Jesuit high school, and, as the other Catholics in this thread will know, the Jesuits are definitely not big on biblical inerrancy.
Catholics in general don’t rely as much on the Bible as Protestants do. It was never that big a deal. Sure, we heard the readings at Mass. But Catholics just don’t emphasize the Bible the way most Protestant denominations do.
Maybe, I really don’t know about them, but along these lines I do believe in the scripture ‘if you seek you will find’ which means that a person who truly seeks will be given the answers regardless of what society he/she is in or what faiths are being practiced in their land. So I would say that there are multiple methods of learning available through many faiths, people and documents, and perhaps some would be more efficient then others.
I was raised Lutheran, and I honestly don’t know if inerrancy was a thing, officially. Questioning the scripture didn’t seem to be treated as heresy, but it did seem to be regarded as rude. For Lutherans, that’s worse.
The only time I heard inerrancy-type doctrines repeated was from congregation members (who seemed more Midwestern evangelical in mindset), not from our pastor.
Yeah, I was taught it, and it’s the reason why, to this day, I’m really good at using fanwanking to eliminate plot holes in things I read.
Well, okay, they never flat out said the bible was inerrant, but it was heavily implied, and fanwanks that preserved the innerrancy were very highly prized, like the “two creations” version where there was a creation between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, or the “water canopy” prior to Noah’s flood which acted as a second ozone layer and preserved more oxygen in the air, thus allowing for the increased life spans.
I will say that, to this day, I still think people make way too much about supposed discrepancies in the Bible. Like, say, the differences between Genesis one and two. They mesh perfectly well: God created Man and Woman on the same day, but not exactly the same time.
I was raised as a Christian in the United Church of Canada, which is about as small-l liberal a denomination as you can get and still be of the Christian tradition. My parents were relatively conservative members of the church, and we tended to attend conservative churches of a very liberal faith. (In general the clergy and church structure are more liberal than most of the congregations)
I read voraciously from age 5 onward and having a set of Golden Book encyclopedias and Kenneth Taylor’s “Bible in Pictures for Little Eyes” was sooner or later going to get me in trouble. I was seven or eight when I asked my parents how I was supposed to reconcile Adam and Eve with the Neandrthals, and other early hominids. Why did the Gospel according to John have no mention of Jesus’ infancy, and Mathew and Luke were so different?
My mother told me to ask our Minister, and the Minister told me that
A) Questions are good.
B) Nobody knows the real answers, these are legends of people who believed in the God of Abraham and stories about things that happened, but not exactly the way the story says.
C) All the versions of the Gospel were written down a long time after it happened, and just like you might not remember what you had for lunch on Tuesday, everyone remembers things slightly differently, and different parts of different stories are more important to some people than the others.
D) We aren’t supposed to have all the answers but we have to be willing to listen learn and think critically about what we hear and read.
E) Isn’t it time for juice and cookies? But come ask me questions any time you want…
Years later I had a chance to tell this story to Marion Best just before she became moderator. She inscribed a copy of her book to me, with the line “Keep asking Questions…for the GOOD of our Church” in it.
Which is why I still count myself as a church member. I like the answers. Questions are good. The Bible isn’t meant to be taken literally, please think critically and help yourself to the cookies.
Raised fundamentalist, non-denominational and, of course, inerrancy and literalism were the only True Way ™ to believe. Anything else would get you an express ticket to hell, sans isle seat. Just another reason that I struggle with what I think to this day. So far, agnosticism is the only thing I can support.
I was raised LCMS and went through Sunday school, then 2 years of confirmation then went to some adult classes. I always felt that we were taught very broadly about the gist of the Bible, sermons were like “here is how this story in the Bible shows God’s love” or “here is how this story in the Bible relates to your life today”
I’m not familiar with any fire and brimstone stuff, or even really focusing on actual text of the Bible. It all seemed very broad and general.
It occurs to me, **Skald[/b[, that you probably could have opened this thread up to any believers: “Did your church/temple/what-have-you teach inerrancy of your religion’s materials?”
Unless, of course you only wanted the Biblical answer…which I can see as well.
The only reason I mention it is because I was trying to remember which way I had it. I’ve heard different things from different people. I clearly remember questioning a Ganesh story* when I was a child and essentially being told to “Hush, child, your betters are talking”. Many times I was silenced from questioning. I don’t know if that’s so much “Hinduism and the books are always right” or “Children should not question”. The latter seems more likely, as there are about a gazillion versions of Hinduism, so inerrancy is right out. Also, children are really not meant to question their elders at any point.
At the same time, I don’t think I would ever have questioned anything Krishna said in the Gita, but while occasionally people claimed everything written in the Mahabharata was correct, most people claimed it was a fictionalized and dramatized version of real events.
*Two stories, in particular. One, where Ganesh gets his steed: a Mouse. :dubious: And the other, where he and his brother need to go around the world, and his brother has a…peacock…I think. And so instead of going around the world, Ganesh circles his parents seven times, praying, and claims that’s just as good if not better than traveling the world, because his parents arehis world. :dubious: :dubious:
Growing up as a Mormon in the 60s and 70s, we believed that the Book of Mormon was the most perfect book in the world, without errors, and believed in the Bible, as far as it was translated corrected.
My mother is still a young earth Creationist, does not believe in evolution, etc. I never noticed or thought about the differences as a child.
This is the first line of the doctrinal statement of the church group we were in,
The Holy Scriptures
We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally inspired Word of God, the final authority for faith and life, inerrant in the original writings, infallible and God‑breathed (II Timothy 3:16, 17; II Peter 1:20, 21; Matthew 5:18; John 16:12, 13).
It wasn’t so much contradictions that I noticed at first. It was things like the line in 1 Corinthians, Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
That never made any sense to me. How does nature teach me that? I never understood what in nature teaches anyone that and was never given a rational explanation of it.
“Another”? I don’t think we had any before yours. The only mentions of infallibility before your post were about biblical infallibility, not papal one.
And even then, papal infallibility was last invoked in… 1950. And before that 1854. And 1794. It’s not exactly a big deal or something that comes up a lot. AFAIK none of those or before involved interpretations of the Bible.
I was raised Southern Baptist and taught Biblical inerrancy and though we moved around some and went to different churches as a result, the question of people who’ve never heard of Jesus was always answered as such (paraphrased): Everyone has had a chance to know Jesus and made a decision. Even the insane and mentally retarded.
And that bothered me as a kid. It really disturbed me to think that someone who isn’t even aware of themselves is allegedly aware of God and their position on him.
Back on the main topic: I did notice contradictions: Why is resurrection in one book about our bodies from the ground, but in another it’s our souls to heaven? Why are women allowed to speak in church in this one verse, but in another they’re not? Why the different accounts of the crucificion and Jesus’ baptism? It’s right there that they’re different! And later, after getting the internet, I stumbled upon a site that listed contradictions with the relevant verses quoted and after reading a few I hastily closed it and decided that the Bible had to be true no matter what I or anyone else thought about it.
I never brought any of this stuff up with my family or anybody. In my family it’s all about blind faith and no one questions anything, so I still am uncomfortable discussing any kind of issue - religous or political - with my family. I mean, how can you reason with someone who believes everything they get by chain-email and responds to your actual evidence with “Well, that’s not what I’ve read.”
I eventually stopped believing completley a few years ago, though I’ve never shared that with my family. I just keep my thoughts to myself for the most part, and every now and then, like maybe with a coworker, I’ll bring up some contradictions to see what they say. Mostly along the lines of “That’s the enemy trying to trick you.” I find it all quite sad.
The only time I really was presented with biblical inerrancy and had it effect me was in the mid nineties when I was (on line and long distance, but we saw each other every few months) dating a man who was raised Southern Baptist. We hadn’t much discussed religion yet, but one day he was having a complete hissy fit, talking about the evil people do to children without realizing, etc etc.
It turns out someone had given his young niece a Barney toy.
I was offended too, because, well it is Barney.
No, it was giving her a sinful evil dinosaur toy. Because dinosaurs don’t exist… never did, not in the Bible… suddenly I’m getting told about the Rapture (never heard of it) and my sinfullness because I had never been “saved” and he prayed for me…
If I recall correctly this exchange happened late on a Wednesday night…we had one more discussion a day or two later where suddenly the free thinking pot smoking vegitarian jazz musician I thought I knew started quoting me chapter and verse and all kinds of weird fundamentalist things that completely baffled me. The universal health care system I had grown up in was proof I didn’t put my faith in God…
I worked overnight on Friday night, and broke up with him first thing on Saturday morning.
Its become a joke, but an effecitve screening tool. “What do you think about Barney the purple dinosaur?” was actually once on an on-line dating profile I had up for a while.