Anyone can read the Bible. - Really?

[wynn]

If we look at the discussions here, many people enter discussions on the assumption that anyone can read scriptures, discuss them, and also understand them or make judicial assessments of what is said.

But in some religious circles, this assumption is not considered appropriate. Instead, it is believed that a person must first have particular qualifications (such as humility), before they can hope to understand scriptures.


Question:
On the grounds of what do some people think they can read scriptures and evaluate them?

 

[Arioch]

That is a good question. It does seem to me that there's an awful lot of moving the goalposts with regards to that.

 

[Ophiolite]

Question:
On the grounds of what do some people think they can read scriptures and evaluate them?

1. Knowledge of historical context.
2. Critical thinking skills.
3. Ability to source and understand scholarly research
4. Absence of any strong prejudicial beliefs

 

[cosmictraveler]

If we look at the discussions here, many people enter discussions on the assumption that anyone can read scriptures, discuss them, and also understand them or make judicial assessments of what is said.

Just how does one make "judical assessments" when all that you read is a myth?:shrug:

 

[Arioch]

@Ophiolite --

That last one is a pipedream, to say the least. Given what the topic is, or is said to be(the eternal salvation of our souls), you have to consider the fact that this is very likely to be a topic where there really are no truly neutral parties. Virtually everybody is going to have strong prejudices(beyond just wanting to be right) because it doesn't just mean that the right answer(and given the nature of most religious texts, there can be only one right answer) is a ticket to paradise, it also means that every single wrong answer is potentially a ticket to eternal torment.

Given such things I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that true neutrality isn't something we're going to see here any time soon, nor do we need to. Having prejudices(either way) doesn't mean that a person is automatically wrong, or that they're mystically incapable of understanding the text(if you want to go that route then you've got a lot of evidence to dig up). What it means is that we must examine their statements and evidence more closely to see if they allowed their bias to unduly influence their findings. If it made their standards of evidence more strict then it would be a good thing, outright ignoring sources of evidence(as many theists demonstrably do) is bad.

Automatically disqualifying someone from debate, discussion, or even saying that they're just unable to understand, is the mark of the bigot and the intellectually lazy. It's so much easier to win a debate if all you have to say is "well you're prejudiced against/for christianity, therefore you just don't understand", but that doesn't mean that you're right.

As I like to keep telling everyone, it doesn't matter who says a thing, what matters is whether or not what is being said is correct or not.

 

[gmilam]

"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences." - HP Lovecraft

 

[Aqueous Id]

if a person turns to an ancient manuscript in pursuit of some universal truth but lacks the fundamental skills to derive truth from that manuscript then this is where a lack of humility gets in the way

it takes humility to turn to another person with more skills than you have and then to ask that person for help because because you must first confess ignorance

there is some discussion in church literature around the time of the printing press when it became obvious that common people would be able to possess their own copy and have it available to read and study without an instructor to guide them

this literature includes several frantic discussions predicting that the common reader will deviate from the intended meaning and that as a consequence the church will be under attack from any false incorrect interpretations some of which would even amount to heresy

and then came the protestant reformation which eventually produced the american version of anabaptism and this is the movement which has done the most damage toward insisting that its members read their version of the scripture in the most literal of contexts without seeking guidance from the wealth of experts at places like universities which use to represent the brain trust of the church

today many generations later this movement is so firmly entrenched that it has even infiltrated the political process giving its members the insanely false hope that this country can be wrested from the control of people who think differently than they do so that some day fundamentalism will reign In america as the guiding principle 4 society and government

all that is needed is blindness ignorance superstition false hope and if you listen very carefully to what they are saying you can get all of these things by reading the bible

just make sure you don't ask any questions which is easily spread by teaching followers especially by the leader's own example that humility is to be sacrificed on the altar of fundamentalism

 

[wynn]

As I like to keep telling everyone, it doesn't matter who says a thing, what matters is whether or not what is being said is correct or not.

And how do you propose to check whether it is correct or not?

 

[wynn]

1. Knowledge of historical context.
2. Critical thinking skills.
3. Ability to source and understand scholarly research
4. Absence of any strong prejudicial beliefs

But aren't you thereby also presuming that religion is all myth, story, and that there, essentially, is no God?

 

[Yazata]

If we look at the discussions here, many people enter discussions on the assumption that anyone can read scriptures, discuss them, and also understand them or make judicial assessments of what is said...

Question:
On the grounds of what do some people think they can read scriptures and evaluate them?

Religious scriptures are human writings. (Or in the Indian case especially, transcriptions of what once were human oral traditions.) If the ideas originally come from human beings, then human beings can understand them. If we don't try, then we never will.

But in some religious circles, this assumption is not considered appropriate. Instead, it is believed that a person must first have particular qualifications (such as humility), before they can hope to understand scriptures.

Just in general, I think that people insisting that only a chosen few can truly understand scripture, while believing of course that they are included in that chosen few, isn't exactly humility.

But yeah, it's obviously true that understanding what an author meant to communicate requires that readers have some familiarity with the circumstances in which a work was written, it's original purpose, its intended audience, and some understanding of the concepts that it contains (which might be quite alien in some cases, when we are reading ancient writings from foreign cultures).

And in the case of some religious texts at least, there's something else. Their point isn't always just to impart information in the manner of a didactic encyclopedia article. The purpose is often to facilitate psychological/spiritual changes in the reader. So I agree that if we are trying to read a text in that way, as part of our own religious practice, it is very important to approach the text in the right state of mind.

There's a difference between a Western academic scholar reading an ancient meditation manual in a deeply analytical but nevertheless arm's-length way, and a practitioner of that form of meditation reading the same manual in light of his or her own meditative experience. The same thing probably applies to things like those Tamil devotional poems, which doubtless convey something rather different to a passionate devotee than they do in the armchairs of a university faculty club. Sufi writings are another example where that distinction is pretty obvious. Theresa of Avila.

 

[wynn]

Religious scriptures are human writings. (Or in the Indian case especially, transcriptions of what once were human oral traditions.) If the ideas originally come from human beings, then human beings can understand them. If we don't try, then we never will.

This is like saying that God does not reveal Himself, and that when religious scriptures claim to be coming directly from God, they are lying.

This is quite a bold position, I think.

 

[The Esotericist]

Question:
On the grounds of what do some people think they can read scriptures and evaluate them?

First I think people need to question and look at what scripture is, and who decided it was scripture in the first place. If they can truly interpret scripture for themselves. . . then why can't they decide for themselves what is to be considered scripture and what is not?

Let's remember, it was the Roman Empire that constructed the Bible, yes?

For example, can we not suppose there might have been some political motivation with including Romans 13:1-7 in scripture? If the Department of Homeland security were to release their version of scripture, surely they wouldn't hesitate to release a version with a similar scripture. . . :shrug:

Romans 13:1-7

New International Version (NIV)

Romans 13
Submission to Governing Authorities
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

 

[arauca]

If we look at the discussions here, many people enter discussions on the assumption that anyone can read scriptures, discuss them, and also understand them or make judicial assessments of what is said.

But in some religious circles, this assumption is not considered appropriate. Instead, it is believed that a person must first have particular qualifications (such as humility), before they can hope to understand scriptures.


Question:
On the grounds of what do some people think they can read scriptures and evaluate them?

Every body should read the scripture.
Pope Johan 23 opened the doer mass was changed from Latin to native language , the bible was permuted to read it and study it.
Beside , what is there so difficult to understand ," Love thy God with all your heart, and love thy neighbor as your self. That is all what the bible is
The bible is filled with examples and advise on how to get alone with your fellow man and consequences if we dont.

 

[gmilam]

This is like saying that God does not reveal Himself, and that when religious scriptures claim to be coming directly from God, they are lying.

This is quite a bold position, I think.

If God does reveal himself, then why does he need a middle man?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Every body should read the scripture.

Why?

The bible is filled with examples and advise on how to get alone with your fellow man and consequences if we dont.

So it's a glorified "self-help" book?

 

[arauca]

1. Knowledge of historical context.
2. Critical thinking skills.
3. Ability to source and understand scholarly research
4. Absence of any strong prejudicial beliefs

If we get the skilled people involved we are going to have leaders and then we are going to have followers , the we are going to have a Catholic leadership , then we get back to year 1000 then if any one does not agree with the church leadership , we are going to excommunicate him or her and exclude them from heaven, and burn the bastard on a pole .
The good Zorastra did not agree having priesthood because we are going to corrupt our self.

 

[arauca]

Why?


So it's a glorified "self-help" book?

If you want to read it..


Self help yes. I don't need you or any one for leader for my life . I am responsible for my life and for my action. Otherwise I will have an excuse to blame for my wrong doing
I will read and select what is good to help me to fulfill the commandments

 

[markl323]

it would be difficult for the words of God to save humanity if humanity has problems understanding them.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If you want to read it.

So not quite what you said earlier.

Self help yes. I don't need you or any one for leader for my life . I am responsible for my life and for my action. Otherwise I will have an excuse to blame for my wrong doing I will read and select what is good to help me to fulfill the commandments

In other words god is your "leader". Contrary to what you've just claimed.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

This is like saying that God does not reveal Himself, and that when religious scriptures claim to be coming directly from God, they are lying.

"when religious scriptures claim to be coming directly from God"

In Islam, it is claimed that what is written came directly from God.
They even say that Mohammed could not read or write.
I don't think Judaism claims that.

Prophets claim to be inspired by God.
The epistles are letters which contain teaching, but I doubt they were intended as revelation.