(17 votes, average: 4.82 out of 5)
Loading...Aren’t critical scholars of the NT more or less bound or driven to stop believing? I’ve decided to provide two reposts on the question, since I continually get asked about it. First: my introduction to the issue and the guest poster.
******************************
One of the questions I get asked the most frequently from blog members is how someone can possibly continue to be a believing Christian if they understand the enormous problems presented by the critical study of the New Testament. I always tell them that in fact it’s not only possible – it happens all the time. Sometimes they are incredulous, but it’s not only true, it’s so true that my friends who know everything I know about the Bible and are still believers often find the question / issue completely puzzling. They have trouble understanding why anyone thinks it’s a problem. As we learned from “Cool Hand Luke” (a great movie, btw, with tons of Christ-images), “What we have here is a failure to communicate.”
I have asked my former student and long-time friend Rev. Dr. Judy Siker to write a couple of posts from a personal standpoint, indicating why / how she continues to be a believer and faithful church person even though she is, at the same time, a critical scholar of the Bible.
I first came to know Judy thirty years ago, when she applied for our graduate program in New Testament/Early Christianity at UNC Chapel Hill. She did both an MA and a PhD here, and developed a number of academic interests, including especially the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew in particular) and Jewish-Christian relations in antiquity. Her dissertation dealt with what we can know about the tensions and conflicts between followers of Jesus and the non-Christian Jews in the community behind the Gospel of Matthew.
Judy had a long and distinguished career in teaching, with positions at Meredith College, the American Baptist Seminary of the West, the Graduate Theological Union, San Francisco Theological Seminary (where she was also Vice President of the institution), and Loyola Marymount University. In addition to being a professional academic, she is also an ordained minister. Here is a first post in which she begins to explain how both are possible.
(Feel free to respond! Judy will be happy to answer your questions)
Judy Siker is author of Who is Jesus? What a Difference a Lens Makes.
******************************
…and you still believe?
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Thank you for your story.
Personally I find it helpful to describe my religion similarly to being married. I don’t believe that marriage is perfect, or that my wife is always right, but that’s not why I’m married. I’m married because I love my wife, and I love being married to her. She doesn’t have to literally be perfect to bring me joy. Similarly, I don’t need to believe that Christianity is perfect or that the Bible is always right, in order to love being a Christian. I don’t think everyone needs to be a Christian, just like I don’t think everyone needs to be married, but I will tell them what’s great about it if they ask me. I find this is a useful way to explain my Christianity to my more skeptical friends.
Great way of putting it Quadell!
Thank you for this story. I have a similar story of being in church from the time I was born. Sunday morning and evening, Wednesday night, every gospel meeting, Bible class, youth group, VBS, church camp…I was at all and enjoyed all. I never wanted to miss any chance to be at a church function. One difference for me was that it was always with the Church of Christ. Never any other denomination.
When I was young, the message from the pulpit was that we did not need any other book than the Bible. We were not to read any other religious books. If we had questions, we were to ask the leadership and it was implied that their answer was to be accepted. When I was a young adult, we were told we could read approved books written by CofC authors. Not all CofC authors were approved.
As I got older, I realized that there were many authors to be read who had good information. But I was warned that if I read and studied too much, I could lose my faith.
I will continue with another post.
The Church of Christ group sounds like a cult
I continued to read and study. I found helpful blogs like Prof. Ehrman’s. As time went on, I found that Judaism and Christianity were similar to most all other religions. Humans trying to make sense of it all by looking to an all knowing and power god of some sort. I do not have an issue with people trying to find answers, but the issue is with the rules and requirements that seem to come with organized religion. Some of these issues have lessened over time but many have not. Most still have “required attendance,” guilt driven offerings, required beliefs of super natural events, exclusion of people with different sexual orientation, exclusion of people with different beliefs, the desire to have bigger and more buildings and the list goes on.
But in addition, I also discovered through study that my church experience that I grew up with and enjoyed very much was all based on a faith system that was based on religions created by humans, not by God or any god. I will not lose the memories of my church life but it is not something I want to hold onto or pass onto my children and grandchildren.
I have asked some questions regarding Isaiah 53 in the Forum. Is there any chance that Mr. Ehrman could take a look? Thank you.
I have set up the forum so blog members can talk among themselves without my input. So have at it there!
To DJV:
You can first enter “Isaiah” in the search bar of this blog, and then you can find several posts about the discussion of Isaiah 53, which have a lot of discussions and Ehrman’s answers.
My question is whether humans are capable of choosing their beliefs. I do not accept that I can choose what I believe. Rather I consider beliefs to be a snapshot in time of a continual process whereby one weighs and assesses the available information that the individual counts as relevant. A process that is too complex to fully understand.
My best friend who is very smart says he chooses his beliefs, and he chooses to believe in god and chooses to be a believing Christian. I’ll challenge him by asking whether he could choose, if he wanted, to believe the world is flat. He says he doesn’t want to believe the world is flat, I say he couldn’t believe it is flat if his life depended on it, and the debate disintegrates at that point. Yes he could say he believes the world is flat but I remain unconvinced that the actual belief is a choice.
Perhaps my question is for neuroscience or psychology, but I ask the Christian scholar whether someone like me whose mind simply cannot reach the conclusion that god exists or that Jesus was divine, could ever choose to believe and become a Christian?
You make a good point and one which a number of psychologists would agree–in some sense beliefs are not under our control. There are some things that you may not be capable of choosing to believe, but I think that has to do with how you read the evidence. If your view of the “evidence” in a certain situation leads you to “believe” one thing or another then you do have some rather indirect control. I cannot go as far as your friend who says he could believe something if he wanted to. I think you only believe something if for you the evidence sends you there. As to your final question, if your mind “simply cannot reach the conclusion that god exists or Jesus was divine” then you are obviously not lead by any evidence to reach that conclusion. (That does not mean, however, that someone whose mind does allow him/her to reach that conclusion is in error.)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I don’t think there’s a better answer. Recognizing that my minority viewpoint (in the southeastern US) might be an indicator that it’s me who thinks in a skewed way, I have tried multiple approaches to understand the evidence and arguments, but my belief-o-meter simply won’t budge.
Bart has done a good job demonstrating that the words of condemnation in the bible for not believing does not mean Jesus or (most of?) the NT writers said we are going to everlasting torment for not getting on board, as so many hold today, but belief seems to be an inherent part of all forms of Christianity. (Am I wrong?)
Maybe searching for truth or goodness, striving to live a moral life, or becoming part of a community is really all that’s required to enter the Christian fold but none of those things require Christian beliefs. So, to people like me, becoming a Christian (or Muslim) is simply out of reach. I’m ok with that but I will forever be baffled by belief-based religions. I find the requirement to believe to be irrational. No need to reply, and thanks again.
The problem in the US is the absolutist fundamentalism that is so prevalent. I was taught that to surrender even one point of doctrine meant that I would have to throw out the entire thing. In many ways compromise was considered worse than unbelief. But once I got past the fear of questioning there was nothing to hold me back. As predicted it all came tumbling down.
What I miss is being part of a close-knit community. But their price of admission is simply too high. I have come to see that no system of thought is healthy unless it incorporates a method of internal critique. How will I know when I’m wrong?
The absolutist fundamentalism has wreaked havoc on Christianity and left many feeling as you do that it is impossible to be part of such a system. I understand why you miss being part of a close-knit community and I understand why you say the price of admission is too high. Not all communities of faith are like this. There are Christian communities that welcome the questioner and are invitational rather than exclusionary.
is absolute fundamentalism: not being humble, not loving your neighbor or “following Christ [God’s voice, sermon on the mount or even try 10 commandments]?
this topic of the post is absolutely wonderful!
but I am at a loss for addressing it coherently.
The USA church that I followed [not which I grew up I’m], since I returned 3.5 years ago full-time I’ve refused to rejoin the church or any church.
I might be sinful as I am living & am an American, so I intercede. but I refuse to be part of the SIN of the USA church [as Wiersbe once preached]
Anyways Robert Reich calls that forgot the term: mixture of fascism & evangelicalism [w/o God]
thank you for the post
do you think Adam & Eve had free will? John Locke “blank slate” & orders, not even given directly to Eve?
Wow! How interesting and well written. Keep going!
Thanks!
My path was similar was similar to your fellow students who “were angry that they had been lied to all their lives.” Not that I felt directly lied to, more like all I had been told and taught just scratched the surface, as if the details regarding contradictions etc. should remain hidden. This made me suspicious of anyone pushing the Christian faith, as if they could no longer be trusted. Lack of trust in anyone professing religious beliefs is what made me lose my faith. I know Bart’s path was different, and I appreciate knowing that your path took you in a different direction compared to me as well.
Thank you for your comments. I am sorry that your experience with folks “pushing the Christian faith” lead you to mistrust anyone professing religious beliefs. I don’t think one’s faith is meant to be pushed and I wish you had had a positive experience with someone who was willing simply to tell you what they thought and why.
Thank you Bart and Judy. I look forward to the next installment.
Dr. Judy Siker, when you say that you “continue to believe” and “live in my faith tradition”, can you clarify what it is that you believe in? For instance, do you believe that the resurrection was an actual event that happened in history?
Thanks!
It would take far more room than I have here to state what exactly I believe in but let me just say that it includes my own experience and sense of a power greater than myself that is a force for good in the world. When we get to specific doctrines and beliefs such as an understanding of the resurrection or an expression of Christology, my beliefs differ from many others who call themselves Christians–and that is ok. I do not think there is only one way of interpreting the information we have. Rather I think it is a constant evaluation of how to live in this world, and my tradition happens to be based on someone I believe was an actual historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth. I believe there are many paths to seeking good.
I appreciate your response, thanks.
My father was a World War-II vet, and a battle-hardened atheist. The only theology he ever shared with me, a few weeks before he died, was this: ”What kind of a god would kill his son on a cross?” I had no answer for him, and he didn’t want a visit from the hospital chaplain. I have pondered his question since 1998 during my study of many religious scriptures. With the help of Drs. Bart and AJ Levine, my current view is that Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedrin were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, not the Heavenly Father.
Your thoughts?
Hosea 6:6
I require devotional love –not sacrifices, and that you know I’AM –not burnt offerings.
I think your current view is correct. I am sorry that your father was led to believe that God killed God’s son. No need to blame God for our human failures!
Dr. Ehrman, I am also struggling with whether or I can still believe in God. I struggle most with the idea of the 4 Omnis of God and the state of the world around us (for example: the problem of suffering & evil in the world). Is it possible that the problem is not “How can God allow evil”, but rather our definition of what characteristics God must have. Maybe the argument falls apart not because there is no God, but because our definition is wrong & naive. What if God is flawed? What if there is a Creator who is all knowing but not all powerful … or all loving? What if, regardless of our insistence that God must possess all 4 Omnis, what if God is still just the tribal storm god of the Sinai that he was when Moses first encountered him on the mountain? Wasn’t “Yahweh” originally just a minor deity in the Canaanite pantheon (one of the Sons of EL)?
What if *that* understanding of God was correct and the modern understanding is the myth?
Dr. Ehrman I look forward to your answer.
Thank you for your comments. This is Dr. Siker, however, not Dr. Ehrman who is responding. I understand the frustration with the “4 Omnis” as you put it and I think many of us struggle over the state of the world around us. My own understanding of this lies in my belief that God is not a puppeteer pulling all the strings in such a fashion that all is well with the world. That view of God contradicts the understanding of human’s having free will. We humans have much to learn and are far from perfection, so I believe there will long be evil in this world. Yet not everyone is evil and my hope continues to be that love will gain an upper hand one day.
Thank you for your reply, but it doesn’t answer my question.
To saavoss:
I think Dr. Judy’s answer is very good. Her thinking is very mature and positive. She should be a very high-level pastor, acknowledging existing problems but still maintaining hope and encouraging others to also maintain hope.
I learned from reading Dr. Ehrman’s posts that he is now an atheist. You can search for his post: Why am I not a Christian? So I don’t think you will get a hopeful answer from Dr. Ehrman.
But I can give you a hopeful answer. I am the author of “Doomsday for Jesus: True Messiah Judges Scammer Jesus”, and I can assure you that God does indeed exist, and God also arranged history and inspired prophecies, and timely dispatched the true Messiah.
Read my book, you can find the true Messiah and know that God absolutely exists. This book is free on Amazon from July 16th to July 20th.
I think that for some, the belief in God, or the Christian belief system or its protrayal of the divine nature of the universe, is founded on the idea that the teachings of Christianity contain mystical truths that go beyond a purely literal interpretation of the scriptures as solely historical-religious texts. This belief might even be a premise for the possibility of continuing faith. Similarly, I think it is possible to believe in love, despite the significant differences in how love is portrayed in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” and Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables.”
Yes,,,,,it is possible to continue believing for whatever that might means
The author is what I would call a “natural believer”. She always believed, irrespective of what she learned.
Then there are the natural “non-believers”. Irrespective of whether they are taught to believe, they never do. The whole thing seems silly to them and if they are taught to believe as children, they eventually give it up.
Then there are the rest of us – whom I call the “Suggestibles” including me and – from what I know about him – Bart, and lots of people, including the people in the clergy study I conducted with Dan Dennett, who are taught to believe as children, and do for a while, until they start thinking about it and maybe reading about it.
I thought up these categories fairly recently. As far as I know, they have not been tested.
The author is what I would call a “natural believer”. She always believed, irrespective of what she learned.
Then there are the natural “non-believers”. Irrespective of whether they are taught to believe, they never do. The whole thing seems silly to them and if they are taught to believe as children, they eventually give it up.
Then there are the rest of us – whom I call the “Suggestibles” including me and – from what I know about him – Bart, and lots of people, including the people in the clergy study I conducted with Dan Dennett, who are taught to believe as children, and do for a while, until they start thinking about it and maybe reading about it.
I thought up these categories fairly recently. As far as I know, they have not been tested.
Dr Siker were you a student, or colleague, or both, with Professor Roger Crook? Either way you of course know, but many on this blog would not know, that he was quite the preeminent professor for a long time at Meredith.
I was indeed! He was an amazing gentleman and scholar and he holds a special place in my heart.
I am a congenital Roman Catholic Yankee who has lived in west TN for the past 24 years. Catholic education from 4th grade thru college. In the first 5 years of being an Ehrman blog member I have read and reflected on more scripture than in the previous 60 years. After reading some of Bart’s books, I found the study of Scripture MORE enjoyable and LESS discomfiting than previously. Furthermore, my faith has not suffered; it has become more clarified. I fully appreciate your story.
Thanks for your comments and apologies for the delayed response. Technical difficulties resulted in my missing some of the posts. Glad to find a fellow traveler for whom knowledge has not dampened faith!
The author is what I would call a “natural believer”. She always believed, irrespective of what she learned.
Then there are the natural “non-believers”. Irrespective of whether they are taught to believe, they never do. The whole thing seems silly to them and if they are taught to believe as children, they eventually give it up.
Then there are the rest of us – whom I call the “Suggestibles” including me and – from what I know about him – Bart, and lots of people, including the people in the clergy study I conducted with Dan Dennett, who are taught to believe as children, and do for a while, until they start thinking about it and maybe reading about it.
I thought up these categories fairly recently. As far as I know, they have not been tested.
Doctrine is false, but the church is real. As a social organization, the church can provide people with a sense of belonging, satisfy their spiritual needs, and provide some material assistance. And people always worry about their life after death, they always need hope after death.
Therefore, knowing that doctrine is wrong is not contradictory to joining the church. Knowing that doctrine is false and comforting people not to worry about life after death is not contradictory. Sometimes white lies and honesty are not contradictory.
Just as people’s donation behavior has many purposes, the motives of clergy should also be further subdivided, Including the influence of birth environment and family members, etc
Question: I clicked on the link for your book at the outset of the post but it took me to Amazon and it said it was unavailable? I was really hoping to get it on Kindle, is it on kindle?
Thank you for your question and apologies for the delay. I have had some technical difficulties and some of these posts are just now showing up to me. Here is a link where you should be able to get my book: https://www.presbyterianwomen.org/bible-study/who-is-jesus/ Let me know if you have trouble with this. All the best to you.
I’ve been a fan of Dr. Ehrman right after I read his first book. As an anthropologist and linguist who spent a year in a Franciscan seminary followed by three years in a Jesuit seminary, I taught a course at two colleges with the racy label, “Magic, Witch Craft and Religion.”
The hardest issue I faced was defining “belief” in an empirical manner. So, I used Carl Jung’s notion that “…belief is a metaphor for knowing something proven.”
My wife is a life-long devout SDA.
Like all millenarian religions, I observe that she and her fellow religionists are ignorant of biblical history.
Even their clergy “believe” very word in the KJV was “written by witnesses” in the life of Jesus Christ.
Being a social scientist wedded to the Scientific Method, I’ve come to the conclusion, there are two types of religionists, i.e., literalists–who see scripture as “TRUTH,” and interpretationists–who see it as metaphor.
Personally, I’m a non-theist, devoid of belief in a personal god but reluctant to judge or condemn the “beliefs” of others.
I’m wondering if you feel there is some limit on what I am allowed to think is true and still call myself a Christian. I know this question basically constitutes rewriting “mere christianity” but I’m hoping I can be precise enough that that isn’t necessary.
I want to continue identifying as a Christian. I was raised a Christian, Christianity can and has always been changing, and I feel I have just as much of a “right” to it as anyone else. But when I read Paul talk about Jesus resurrection I just think “woah, that’s a wild hill to die on but okay if that how you feel about it Paul.. that’s not how I feel”
I find myself taking this sort of response to biblical authors increasingly often. should it matter to me that so many Christians consider most or all of my beliefs to be heretical?
In my head (and probably thanks to my charismatic roots) I just want to follow Jesus. I like his nonviolent resistance of evil. I like the tradition of humans trying to understand and follow him. I feel like they should be enough.. but to so many people, it’s obviously not enough.
Apologies for the slow reply. I actually thought folks were probably moving on to the next thing, so I have not checked in a bit.
Regarding your comments, I do not think it is my job (or right) to put a limit on what you are allowed to think and still call yourself Christian. I agree that following the teachings of Jesus is an admirable way to live, a healthy and honorable goal for a life. You say some would consider many of your beliefs to be heretical and I can relate to that. There are many who have decided to make themselves judge and jury over this, but I believe it is a quite personal quest. I wish you all the best in your journey.
some family friend asked me this a few months ago, what is a christian:
love thy neighbor; follow god; be humble
Apologies for the slow reply. I thought folks had moved on, but am happy to see that there is still interest. Then, technical glitches caused another delay but here we are. First, I do not think it is for me to say whether or not there is a limit on what you are allowed to think and still call yourself a Christian. The diversity among those who call themselves Christian is extensive. If you are going to pick someone to emulate then Jesus is surely a good choice so I think your desire to follow his teachings and way of being in the world is admirable. There will always be those who will label as heretics those of us with anything other than “traditional”,rigidly defined understandings of Christianity. That is no reason, however, to stop our own sincere quests.
Although these posts are thought-provoking, they still don’t answer two thoughts that I have:
Isn’t it true, that no matter what we are taught, what we experience, or what we shake hands on – we ultimately believe what we want to believe – we believe something to be true because we want it to be true?
This seems to have a sound basis in logic, and more often than not, illuminates a rational fact.
Isn’t it true, that no one ever chooses to follow God? Doesn’t God first select a few (before the beginning of time), and subsequently, stimulates them (only them) to follow Him? Is that not the reason why there are “chosen” and “unchosen”?
People follow God because God wants them to, not because they want to. People become who they are because that is how God programmed (predestined) them. I personally don’t believe we are given free will. Doesn’t God make it clear throughout Scripture that everything happens according to His will and for His pleasure?
Why does Scripture tell us ‘most people’ will end up in hell, when most people believe they’ll end up in heaven? Which are we to believe?
Thank you for your comments. Since you and I seem to be working from two dichotomous assumptions I can’t really give you an answer that will address your unanswered questions.
I call the Calvinist teaching described the “monster god” theology. It is found in Scripture as are other theologies that refute that. When scripture, teaches contradictory things maybe people do believe what they want to believe for reasons buried deep within each person.
I think the big question the article fails to address, and rightfully can’t address in the context, is what constitutes a christian or believer or person of faith. Everyone has his or her own ideas and they vary considerably.
After reading your post and the discussion I may have had a personal revelation. For sometime now, I have told myself that I am seeking the truth.
I was raised in a small church in a rural community where I guess there was real faith being practiced because no one pretended to actually know the answers to the questions that seem to come up during Bible reading but everyone continued to pray and believe that God through his son would intervene in our lives.
Later that just wasn’t good enough for me so I had to get involved with the fundamentalist Southern Baptist, this book is inerrant, church and that didn’t last long.
While reading all this it occurred to me that perhaps I’m not really seeking the truth, but looking to justify my non-belief.
The takeaway from Prof. Siker’s post is that she was effectively brainwashed as a child. Throughout her life she returned to the Faith like a comfort blanket. But nowhere does she explain why her work supports a forthright conviction that the Gospels and Paul were writing anything of actual truth.
Interesting interpretation. I don’t and never have felt brainwashed; nor have I ever considered my faith to be a comfort blanket.
So what we are saying is, Christianity is basically whatever it is to you personally, wherever you happen to be led? If so that’s a very modern and pleasant way to think about. “Let’s keep everyone happy and fulfilled?” Too bad for all those burned and killed for the sake of making theological “mistakes” over time.
Fundamentalism offers what liberal Christianity cannot – easy answers for complex problems, right or wrong.
What does liberal Christianity offer compared to that for the normal every day person not aware of Christian scholarship? Nothing like that. It offers nebulous belief. Perhaps liberal Christians are “more correct” in their view of history or Jesus, or whatever. But that’s not what attracts the average person. I do not think that liberal Christian academics understand the mind of the general population when it comes to what most think about religion. If they think that we can offer a milquetoast approach heavy on scholarship to the general public and contain anywhere near the attraction level that Fundamentalism has to offer (however mistaken) then we’re mistaken.
“Christianity is basically whatever it is to you personally, wherever you happen to be led? ”
Except that is not true.
what is spewed as USA popular Christianity is NOT the same as 40 years ago.
Does God change or following him?
Thank you, Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Siker for this forum and for your posts.
Dr. Siker, I’m both thankful and envious that you were raised in a religious milieu that permitted “living the questions” as you say. What a healthy and nourishing paradigm!
Would you have any advice for those of us who were indoctrinated in more fundamentalist traditions and struggle to let go of the fear-based dogma that prevent them from pursuing a healthier, balanced, and more academic approach to the Bible?
Thank you again for sharing your heart and views. These posts are timely and (I’m sure) will help many of Dr. Ehrman’s readers.
Thank you for your comments. I, too, am grateful for the environment in which I was raised and for the people in my life who encouraged rather than discouraged my questioning. My advice to you is to believe in yourself and to try to turn off the voices that continue to play in your head espousing fear-based dogma. Jesus questioned the “dogma” of his day and I think we are called to keep seeking. I wish you the best in your quest.
I know these questions are a bit late.
First, as an ordained minister I wonder if you stress to other believers in church or sermons or bible studies that the Pentateuch is myth rather than actual history? Particularly the creation stories through flood stories.
Second, similarly do you stress to other believers that the gospel authors are not known and that the gospels were written in Greek rather than Aramaic, and written far away from where Jesus and his disciples lived?
Third, similarly do you stress that we don’t have bible books originals, nor original copies, nor copies of copies, etc.?
I am intrigued, even perplexed, that these truths are not mentioned in sermons, Sunday school lessons, bible studies, etc. I think if these topics were discussed more openly that believers would become much more open to alternate ways of thinking and living, rather than a narrow ‘the bible is literal so live and think as it says’.
If you don’t mention these topics, why not? Why not present all that is known about the bible, even the uncomfortable truths?
Thank you for your comments and questions and please forgive my delayed response. I actually assumed folks had moved on so I wasn’t checking lately. I do not in my own work (academy and church) shy away from any of the topics you point out in your comments. I agree that these are topics of interest and importance and I think if folks are invited to consider these it doesn’t have to be scary (as some folks find it) or blasphemous (as others do).
Thank you for this post. I can’t help but see the words *moderate* and *conservative* jump off the page. I suspect that if the version of Christianity I grew up with had been more interested in open questions and kindness than easy certainties and condemnation, I might not have thrown out the bath water and decided there was no baby after all.
Hoping you can find a community (or even just a few good friends) who are willing to explore the questions with you…
Thanks. Last question – I promise :). Based on your parenthetical persons who may find these topics scary or blasphemous, do you also have people express surprise that they never heard or read about these topics through typical church or christian programs, i.e. bible study, sunday school, VBS, etc?
Yes, this is often the reaction of folks who have never heard some of this information. Their reactions are diverse. Some are curious as to why no one would have told them; some are frustrated by this; others are angry that it has been “withheld;” and others are simply happy for the new information and ready to explore more.