Interpreting the scripture

[Peds nurse]

Hello people!!

I have talked with a couple of non believers who are somewhat disturbed when Christians claim to interpret or have more insight to scripture than they do. I am wondering why this is an issue? If we read multiple books on electric conductivity of the brain, and how various diseases interfere with that process, would we claim to know as much as a neurologist?

I don't think that Christians are claiming that nonbelievers are incompetent in any way, or that they lack the skills to interpret scripture, rather I believe it is because we as Christians, have God living in us (His Spirit), giving us discernment in how to apply and live out those scriptures in our life (New Testament).

Question for debate: Do you think it is reasonable to think that Christians have an advantage over nonbelievers in interpreting scripture? Why do some find this claim offensive?

HAPPY 4TH of JULY!!!

[tam]

From Post 53:

Making the statement that some who call themselves Christian are not... is simply following what Christ has also taught.

Which gets us right back to how can we tell if this collection of stories and such is an accurate reflection of what he taught. We're expected to rely on these tales as evidence these tales are accurate, and how it is, this "spirit" is s'posed to guide us, only it is, folks've been claiming to have such a "spirit", and they still disagree.

I propose that instead of attempting to show who is and who ain't a Christian, you'd do better to show these various religious assertions are an accurate reflection of reality.


Show us this "spirit" guides folks to some superior understanding of biblical texts. Extra bonus points if ya can do it without referencing the very book making the claims.

I would say truthful, over saying superior. Regardless, I can tell you how He has done so for me without referencing the text but that would be personal testimony and I am not sure if that is what you mean by 'show' you.

As for your proposal above, I'm not going around doing that to begin with and hopefully I explained that well enough in my response to Zzyzx and Danmark. You and I probably posted at the same time.


Peace to you JoeyKnothead,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[enviousintheeverafter]

Question for debate: Do you think it is reasonable to think that Christians have an advantage over nonbelievers in interpreting scripture?

Only to the extent that Christians are obviously going to be, on average, more familiar with their own sacred texts than non-Christians. But the same will be true for every other religion- Muslims would have an inherent advantage over Christians in interpreting the Koran for the same reason; many Christians have never read the Koran at all. But this isn't true across the board, and assuming an equal familiarity with the texts, there is no inherent advantage to believing the texts (i.e. as religious canon), indeed potentially the opposite since commitment to traditions or established doctrines may well create a conflict of interests between defending traditional doctrines/interpretations and sticking to sound/accepted methodology when the two clash (as they often do).

[Danmark]

Only to the extent that Christians are obviously going to be, on average, more familiar with their own sacred texts than non-Christians.
....

One would certainly think so, but,

The Pew Forum on Religious Religion and Public Life released a survey on religious knowledge today. Atheists and Agnostics scored higher on it than anyone else, closely followed by Jews and Mormons, all Christians, Protestants and Catholics, were far behind.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... -religious

Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.
http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s- ... ge-survey/

One of the theories that may explain this:
American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.
"These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."

As examples the study found a startling lack of basic knowledge by religious practitioners:

More than four-in-ten Catholics in the United States (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ. About half of Protestants (53%) cannot correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation, which made their religion a separate branch of Christianity. Roughly four-in-ten Jews (43%) do not recognize that Maimonides, one of the most venerated rabbis in history, was Jewish.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Only to the extent that Christians are obviously going to be, on average, more familiar with their own sacred texts than non-Christians.
....

One would certainly think so, but,

The Pew Forum on Religious Religion and Public Life released a survey on religious knowledge today. Atheists and Agnostics scored higher on it than anyone else, closely followed by Jews and Mormons, all Christians, Protestants and Catholics, were far behind.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... -religious

Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.
http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s- ... ge-survey/

One of the theories that may explain this:
American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.
"These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."

As examples the study found a startling lack of basic knowledge by religious practitioners:

More than four-in-ten Catholics in the United States (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ. About half of Protestants (53%) cannot correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation, which made their religion a separate branch of Christianity. Roughly four-in-ten Jews (43%) do not recognize that Maimonides, one of the most venerated rabbis in history, was Jewish.

I feel like I ought to be more surprised than I am at this...

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 47 by JoeyKnothead]

I'm not sure one can feel slandered by words that have no meaning to them?

I remember when my mum ran day care and one kid came up to her crying and said that the other kid called him a 'shomabomba'. We still call each other a 'shomabomba' when we want to insult each other.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 47 by JoeyKnothead]

I'm not sure one can feel slandered by words that have no meaning to them?

I remember when my mum ran day care and one kid came up to her crying and said that the other kid called him a 'shomabomba'. We still call each other a 'shomabomba' when we want to insult each other.

My wife and I have a code phrase we use sometimes. It's the punchline of a joke and stands for something much less innocent:

"Please pass the Wheaties."

[Blastcat]

In response to the OP:

Do you think it is reasonable to think that Christians have an advantage over nonbelievers in interpreting scripture? Why do some find this claim offensive?

Technically, no... because interpretation does not belong to men, so it should not BE a Christian interpreting scripture.

I wonder who you think it IS that does the interpreting?

[Zzyzx]

.

I would say truthful, over saying superior.

Would you say that other "understandings or interpretations" are NOT truthful if they contradict yours? It would seem as though you must accept contrary interpretations as equal to yours or claim that yours is superior (at least for yourself).

Regardless, I can tell you how He has done so for me without referencing the text but that would be personal testimony and I am not sure if that is what you mean by 'show' you.

Agreed. All that Apology has to offer is its own unverifiable texts plus personal unverifiable testimonials – and seems miffed that others will not accept that "evidence" as proof of truth.

Would you (generic term) accept the same level of "evidence" in support of one of the thousands of competing gods?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 61:

Show us this "spirit" guides folks to some superior understanding of biblical texts. Extra bonus points if ya can do it without referencing the very book making the claims.

I would say truthful, over saying superior.

Then show us all how "truthful" it is, this book of contradictions and outrageous claims.

Regardless, I can tell you how He has done so for me without referencing the text but that would be personal testimony and I am not sure if that is what you mean by 'show' you.

You can tell it all ya want, you just can't present nothing more'n your swearin' up and down about it.

As for your proposal above, I'm not going around doing that to begin with and hopefully I explained that well enough in my response to Zzyzx and Danmark. You and I probably posted at the same time.

I contend you are, samularity of posts regardless.

You dare say some "Spirit" - that you can't show is there, leads you to some "truthful" understanding, and declare that Christians who don't see it your way can't find 'em the "truth" if it jumps up and bites 'em.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 65:

Edit in: I wanna make sure folks know I seek to set an example here of the problem with "interpretation" this very OP presents. I have NO ill will t'wards Wootah, only I feel it best to "fight fire with fire" regarding what I contend is a libelous accusation ("all are sinners"), "interpreted" or not. I fully respect that we must allow some leeway for Christians to express their beliefs, but I will contend that if one's "belief" is to be allowed, and that belief is libelous, then we must allow folks such as myself to "libel" folks in order to get a point across. I've not reported any of these "libelous posts" specifically because I seek to debate the issue, 'cause I think it's more important to explain why it's a libel, than to just cuss about it.

Please understand that my following libels are presented as an example of what's a goofy way to go. I don't explain 'em within the text, so that impact may be preserved
/edit

I'm not sure one can feel slandered by words that have no meaning to them?

There we go, declare common English terms have no meaning to the non-Christian.

Good. Then I can tell what an idiot you are, expectin' that you can't understand common English terms, or that I can't understand just how much of an idiot you are, such that I'm immune from being expected to offer Christians one pixel of common courtesy.

Don't it beat all, my failure to understand common English terms indicates I'm a big ol' "sinner", in the eyes of a god the Christian is utterly and without fail incapable of showin' exists to even think sin occurs.

But cool.

Christians are liars.

Every dang one of 'em.

'Cause a god I can't show exists to tell it, well don't it beat all, that's him a-tellin' it, not poor ol' me and why are you a-pickin' on my super-special beliefs!


Where, in all civility, do I get to declare Christians a big ol' lyin' sack of gum scraped up off the playground, after several of the special-ed kids picked it up and chewed on it? Where, in all civility, do I get to accuse every Christian on this planet of havin' the cooties?


That'll be two Christians libelin' others, and this'n here ostensibly tryin' to defend those libels.

Next Christian to defend these libels, please come forth.

I remember when my mum ran day care and one kid came up to her crying and said that the other kid called him a 'shomabomba'. We still call each other a 'shomabomba' when we want to insult each other.

Your confusin' "shomabomba" with "sinner" is sound indication of one or more of the following:

You can't comprehend the English language.

You can't spell.

You can't tell a libel from Shinola, in which case I declare you should be immediately removed from the moderating team.

You can tell it, only you wish to cover up the -ahem- "sins" of your fellow Christians.

You wish to obfuscate, hide or otherwise cover up these libels by creating a word and askin' us all, "See how funny my word is, how can it possibly be that libelin' folks ain't funny?"

Or some other deal that has you seeking to excuse YOUR FELLOW tHEISTS as libelers, or, if I get to confuse common English terms, your fellow liars.

What Christian here is too proud to libel?

What Christian here will speak against the libels their fellow Christians present?

What Christian here can show their god considers someone, anyone a "sinner"?


What Christian here, can show he speaks truth?



Bring it on, you incapable of showin' ya speak truthers!

SHOW US YOUR GOD CONSIDERS EVERY DANG ONE OF US "SINNERS".

SHOW US YOU AIN'T A LIAR!

Remember though, your god considers lyin' to be a sin!