Are Christians more able to understand the Bible than non-Christians?

[ThePlayDrive]

In a few other threads, I've encountered a sentiment that I find preposterous: that because I am not a Christian, my opinion on the Bible is pretty much invalid and "an attempt to distort and warp the Bible for my own agenda".

I grew up in the Episcopal Church, attended Catholic schools and have studied the Bible intently in order to form my position on God from an educated perspective. I have always considered religion to be like any other idea - subjective in nature and fun to think and argue about. But now I am told that because I haven't been a Christian for the last two years, my opinion on these matters means nothing in comparison to what my opinion would have meant two years ago.

So my questions are: Are Christians more able to understand the Bible than non-Christians? Was I better able to understand the Bible two years ago than I am today? Is Christianity an idea that both Christians and non-Christians can discuss together or should Christians only talk among themselves?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I've always found that argument amusing. I don't have an agenda where the Bible is concerned, because the Bible is irrelevant to my life. I'm only interested in the Bible at all because so many people follow it-- and if I can make them think about their beliefs, their beliefs will grow stronger.

 

[UtahBill]

In Testament, a book and Public TV series from some years back, John Romer says that many christians hold that the 4 gospels may only be understood by believers, that skeptics are unlikely to see the light.
begs the question....so you have to believe to understand, or understand to believe?
there are some who claim superior knowledge, purer morality, etc. based on their professed beliefs, and that there are too many passive believers who are not christian enough. happens in other faiths as well....
Christianity/church should be a tool we use to make ourselves better, not a disguise to make us appear to be better than others.
There are lots of phonies in the churches...they teach/preach/live the letter of the law, as they see it, but won't cross the street to befriend a neighbor....

 

[Cephus]

I would argue that believers are less able to understand the Bible, simply because they don't try to understand the reality behind it, they embrace the mythology and don't care if it's true.

 

[DarkWizard12]

In a few other threads, I've encountered a sentiment that I find preposterous: that because I am not a Christian, my opinion on the Bible is pretty much invalid and "an attempt to distort and warp the Bible for my own agenda".

I grew up in the Episcopal Church, attended Catholic schools and have studied the Bible intently in order to form my position on God from an educated perspective. I have always considered religion to be like any other idea - subjective in nature and fun to think and argue about. But now I am told that because I haven't been a Christian for the last two years, my opinion on these matters means nothing in comparison to what my opinion would have meant two years ago.

So my questions are: Are Christians more able to understand the Bible than non-Christians? Was I better able to understand the Bible two years ago than I am today? Is Christianity an idea that both Christians and non-Christians can discuss together or should Christians only talk among themselves?

Depends on what you are asking from it. If you're asking for moral lessons, obviously, it's good to have a long-time christian to help you understand so that the text is not perverted unintentionally. anything else, it doesn't really matter.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

No. Openness to what it actually says is what makes one able to understand the Bible.

Ironically, many Christians lack this. They were raised Christian and had their dogma settled upon before they ever read the Bible for themselves (and many of them never did, apart from select passages that confirm their pre-concieved notions). They have an agenda, and they let what little reading of the Bible they do be warped by it.

An atheist without an agenda, who is linguistically and historically educated, is more capable of understanding the Bible than a Christian lacking that openness. A Christian who has that openness is just as able to understand it.

Believing in something is not necessary to understand it. I don't believe in Greek mythology, Harry Potter, or Freudian psychology, but I understand them perfectly well.

 

[molten_dragon]

I would argue that believers are less able to understand the Bible, simply because they don't try to understand the reality behind it, they embrace the mythology and don't care if it's true.

The counter-argument is that believers are inherently skewing their understanding of the material due to the fact that they come into it making the assumption that it is all true rather than looking at it objectively.

 

[Cephus]

The counter-argument is that believers are inherently skewing their understanding of the material due to the fact that they come into it making the assumption that it is all true rather than looking at it objectively.

That's exactly what I was trying to get at. In addition, believers, particularly fundamentalist believers, tend to ignore contradictions and errors because of their pre-existing conviction that there can't be any. They will re-interpret passages that say one thing in light of others that demand that it can't actually say that. If you're looking for a legitimate and honest evaluation of the Bible, the last person you should look to is someone who believes that the Bible is true.

 

[Ikari]

They need to rename the philosophy forum "Religion II - The Revenge of Atheism" because this is a lot less to do with philosophy and much more to do about religion. I can't believe we're so god damned touchy feely these days that we can't even categorize properly.

 

[Cephus]

They need to rename the philosophy forum "Religion II - The Revenge of Atheism" because this is a lot less to do with philosophy and much more to do about religion. I can't believe we're so god damned touchy feely these days that we can't even categorize properly.

Come on, rename it what it is. "Religion II - because Theists are ******s".

 

[ThePlayDrive]

They need to rename the philosophy forum "Religion II - The Revenge of Atheism" because this is a lot less to do with philosophy and much more to do about religion. I can't believe we're so god damned touchy feely these days that we can't even categorize properly.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[molten_dragon]

That's exactly what I was trying to get at. In addition, believers, particularly fundamentalist believers, tend to ignore contradictions and errors because of their pre-existing conviction that there can't be any. They will re-interpret passages that say one thing in light of others that demand that it can't actually say that. If you're looking for a legitimate and honest evaluation of the Bible, the last person you should look to is someone who believes that the Bible is true.

I completely misread your earlier post. For some reason I thought you were saying non-believers were less likely to understand the bible. That's what I get for posting right after I get up.

 

[AdminX]

In a few other threads, I've encountered a sentiment that I find preposterous: that because I am not a Christian, my opinion on the Bible is pretty much invalid and "an attempt to distort and warp the Bible for my own agenda".

I grew up in the Episcopal Church, attended Catholic schools and have studied the Bible intently in order to form my position on God from an educated perspective. I have always considered religion to be like any other idea - subjective in nature and fun to think and argue about. But now I am told that because I haven't been a Christian for the last two years, my opinion on these matters means nothing in comparison to what my opinion would have meant two years ago.

So my questions are: Are Christians more able to understand the Bible than non-Christians? Was I better able to understand the Bible two years ago than I am today? Is Christianity an idea that both Christians and non-Christians can discuss together or should Christians only talk among themselves?

In my opinion, non-Christians have a better understanding of the Bible because we are objective in nature. Christians read through a lense of belief and miss things that any rational mind would find shocking, such as the vengeful and malicious nature of the Old Testiments God and it's obvious contrast to the new nicer version of the NT.

 

[Ikari]

You didn't answer the question.

No, Christians are not better able to "understand" the Bible than non-Christians. All humans can understand it to the same degree. Now often times, atheists aren't as well read up on the Bible because we don't give a ****. But a lot of atheists are also brought up religious, and in America that almost always means "Christian". So many of us have had exposure to religious teachings as taught through religious organizations.

It's not so much a question of ability, we all have the ability. It's more a question of desire.

 

[Penderyn]

Certainly a great many alleged Christians do not understand the New Testament, which does NOT recommend the worship of Mammon and hatred of the poor.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I'd agree with AdminX and say that non-believers tend to read the Bible in an objective sense. Christians, specifically, tend to read the Bible through rose tinted glasses and read the parts they like (i.e. the birth of Jesus, the miracles, etc.) but seem to neglect passages such as Numbers 31 where Moses (through "god's" commands) mercilessly slaughters innocent men, women, and children. Again, they read what they want to read, not the Bible as a whole.

 

[AdminX]

I'd agree with AdminX and say that non-believers tend to read the Bible in an objective sense. Christians, specifically, tend to read the Bible through rose tinted glasses and read the parts they like (i.e. the birth of Jesus, the miracles, etc.) but seem to neglect passages such as Numbers 31 where Moses (through "god's" commands) mercilessly slaughters innocent men, women, and children. Again, they read what they want to read, not the Bible as a whole.

exactly, I mean this is a bible that talks about dashing kids against stones (literally), commanding bears to eat unrully kids, forces abraham to sacrifice his son then says, "ha! just kidding. i wanted to test your loyalty", the list goes on and on.

any objective person should read the OT and consider it a horror novel. christians somehow laud it as proof of gods grace.

 

[Wake]

I find that people who live the Christian lifestyle, understand it as their religion and hold true to it, as well as go to church...

...well, I would think they have more of an understanding than, say, athiests who merely view the Bible as a man-made fairy-tale and who, at every second, seek to make fun of it and mock those who believe.

If you don't understand it, and have contempt for it, how can you understand it more than the person who has it as their religion?

 

[Medusa]

I regard these books as a guide,I act like a pragmatist,I have a mind and it helps me separate facts from emotions.

 

[RadicalModerate]

I find that people who live the Christian lifestyle, understand it as their religion and hold true to it, as well as go to church...

...well, I would think they have more of an understanding than, say, athiests who merely view the Bible as a man-made fairy-tale and who, at every second, seek to make fun of it and mock those who believe.

If you don't understand it, and have contempt for it, how can you understand it more than the person who has it as their religion?

Maybe atheists can see the Bible in a more objective light than those who see it as inherently true.

I've known a lot of Christians who fail to see the bible as a full work; they pick pieces of it out to suit their own theology and tend to ignore or marginalize the rest. Perhaps atheists, lacking faith of the Scriptures beings the Word of a Certain God, can see a more well rounded picture of what the Bible is; one of the greatest literary works in human history, a invaluable record of the philosophical musings of human beings, a beautifully written allegory of man's time on Earth and a major source of morality and also immorality, all in one.

Wake, don't listen to idiots who "despise" the Bible. They don't know anything about it. There are many atheists out there (including myself) who don't "hate" the Bible, and in fact see it in only slightly different terms from those with faith. We see it is a cornerstone of human philosophy whose legitimacy simply comes from it's inherent insights, not from a higher power's authority.

 

[Wake]

You cannot just have intellect alone to understand the Bible. You have to have faith. Otherwise, from a coldly intellectual standoint it's pretty much nothing but gibberish to you.

 

[Wake]

Maybe atheists can see the Bible in a more objective light than those who see it as inherently true.

I've known a lot of Christians who fail to see the bible as a full work; they pick pieces of it out to suit their own theology and tend to ignore or marginalize the rest. Perhaps atheists, lacking faith of the Scriptures beings the Word of a Certain God, can see a more well rounded picture of what the Bible is; one of the greatest literary works in human history, a invaluable record of the philosophical musings of human beings, a beautifully written allegory of man's time on Earth and a major source of morality and also immorality, all in one.

Wake, don't listen to idiots who "despise" the Bible. They don't know anything about it. There are many atheists out there (including myself) who don't "hate" the Bible, and in fact see it in only slightly different terms from those with faith. We see it is a cornerstone of human philosophy whose legitimacy simply comes from it's inherent insights, not from a higher power's authority.

I don't see it as just a book, but, from the Christian standpoint, something to believe in. What is the point of religion if you cannot believe? If a God did create existence, why would that God make it so that we could objectively know said God exists?

If you choose to not believe and view it as a humanistic work, then that is your choice. Merely, I ask that they don't try to warp our Christian faith any further. Many are already within the "Christian" faith who have rotted out parts of the Bible, choosing, in order to be in line with modern secular thought, transform the scripture, thus dooming many should the older Bible versions be more accurate and God truly exist.

Meh. Right now I have very little interest in getting into a good philosophical discussion on religion.

 

[RadicalModerate]

You cannot just have intellect alone to understand the Bible. You have to have faith. Otherwise, from a coldly intellectual standoint it's pretty much nothing but gibberish to you.

Well, I disagree. I have taken some serious philosophical insights from the Bible and still have no faith in Jesus Christ as the begotten son of God and savior of mankind. I think you all you need is an inquisitive mind and a taste for knowledge, regardless of source.

 

[RadicalModerate]

I don't see it as just a book, but, from the Christian standpoint, something to believe in. What is the point of religion if you cannot believe? If a God did create existence, why would that God make it so that we could objectively know said God exists?

If you choose to not believe and view it as a humanistic work, then that is your choice. Merely, I ask that they don't try to warp our Christian faith any further. Many are already within the "Christian" faith who have rotted out parts of the Bible, choosing, in order to be in line with modern secular thought, transform the scripture, thus dooming many should the older Bible versions be more accurate and God truly exist.

Meh. Right now I have very little interest in getting into a good philosophical discussion on religion.

Who says the Bible has to be taken with religion?

Sounds like your trying to justify a particular type of faith or view of the Bible. Well, I hate to break it to ya Wake, but you have no right to expect that your view of the Bible be the "correct" one.

 

[Wake]

Who says the Bible has to be taken with religion?

Sounds like your trying to justify a particular type of faith or view of the Bible. Well, I hate to break it to ya Wake, but you have no right to expect that your view of the Bible be the "correct" one.

Yet should we assume the secular atheist's view is?

Perhaps we should just give up on Churches and trying to spread the more traditional word of God...?