Non-Christians Interpreting the Bible

[mwtech]

Since I started posting on here, and discussing religion in the real world, it always seems to confuse people that I can discuss the doctrine of the Bible as though it were true even though I'm an atheist. It isn't difficult for me to discuss what the authors of the Bible intended for the readers to get out of what they wrote. And I am perfectly capable of looking at the Bible as if it were 100% true and deduce what it instructs us to do in that case. I don't think it is true, and I think that makes it even easier for me to understand the intentions of the authors. If you believe the author to be God, that introduces the idea that the scriptures are mysterious and divine and written on a level more intelligent than humans can possibly hope to fully understand. Because I think it was written by humans, I can only assume they wrote it on a level of human intelligence, and it becomes no harder to interpret than any other piece of literature. It also leaves me in a position to assume there was certain motivation behind writing pieces of literature, and that also plays into the interpretations I can make. Whereas a (fundamentalist) Christian assumes the only motivation behind it is to convey a message of God.

Just because an atheist doesn't believe in the Bible, is there any reason they can't discuss what it means along with Christians. I think our position allows us to be even more objective, and therefore more scholarly than someone who is emotionally invested in what it "means" to them.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 37 by dianaiad]
It would be rather ironic for an Atheist to say "This is definitely what God really meant" in their interpretation of the Bible, but I do think it's quite plausible for an Atheist to interpret as if it were of God and proclaim, "This is what it appears to be saying." The problem is that there are inconsistencies so it seems beneficial to point them out and thus show how God or the Bible contradicts itself. Of course, that then simply means we're not being guided enough by God to see how it's not REALLY an inconsistency but rather an interpretive error. Of course, one could take any literature and explain away the inconsistencies and proclaim ignorance on the part of those pointing them out. So really it's just an excuse of sorts not to see the evidence mounted against it because one's mind is already made up. Atheists are just as capable of explaining it away, we simply don't see the value in doing so since we're free to interpret it at face-value rather than with the preconceived idea that it's perfect. The Bible makes a much clearer congruent picture when allowing for it to be imperfect and expecting foul-play.

Now, now....I didn't say that your problem was that you didn't have the right to interpret the bible in any way you wish.

The problem, as I rather clearly established it in my post, is when the non-believer insists that my interpretation is *really* the same as his/hers, and that I somehow have to defend that interpretation.

Even when I don't share it.


I'm not, for instance, telling you that you can't think what is written in the bible is what you think it is. I'm simply letting you know that if you wish to disparage, debunk, disprove or dis-anything else MY beliefs, then it's my interpretation you have to go with.

Not yours.

Don't know why that would be a surprise, given this insistence that non-believers can interpret the bible for themselves. After all, if they can, the believers can, as well.

There are too many versions of Christianity. Where I came from, you are not a Christian due to the worship of Joseph Smith (accurate or not), just like the Catholics that worship Mary (accurate or not).

My point is, to argue (even accurately) one version of Christianity is to get thousands of others wrong. There is no getting around this as hard as some of us may try.