Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[RoadRunner79]

I am assuming that you are talking about Christianity.  Just so you know, that is not what Scripture teaches.

You think you're the only person to tell us that? Every christian tells us that whenever what we say about the bible deviates even slightly from their (often unspoken) beliefs. Even the ones that actually believe what Rob said here; both you and the people that believe the precise reverse will tell us that the scripture doesn't teach anything other than what they believe, so somebody has to be wrong there and curiously enough, not a one of you seems interested in actually justifying why they think the scripture does or does not teach a thing, just in fiat commanding that it does or does not.

---

Equally interestingly, none of you are willing to be accurate with your words either; I've never heard a christian tell me "just so you know, that is not what my interpretation of the scripture teaches," despite that literally being the truth. No, you all just say "that is not what the scripture teaches," because only your interpretation of the scripture could ever possibly be what's really in the text, right? And we've all just gotta presuppose that because you said so, don't we? Because you're certainly not going to do more than just say it, are you?

It's a bit of a losing battle for us atheists, you see. We're facing demands that we take the scripture to teach strictly what a series of individual christians believe, one after the other, and more often than not those demands are mutually exclusive. You'll command that the scripture teaches one thing, Drich another, GC yet another and so on, and if we fail to pretend the bible teaches only what the christian we're talking to believes, we get haughty little asides telling us what to pretend is in the bible now, because none of you are capable of separating your interpretation from the actual body of the text, only other people's interpretations get that treatment.

But when we've got multiple christians each demanding that we pretend the bible only contains their specific beliefs when from the outside it looks as though it contains none of those sets in their entirety, the best way to proceed is not to pretend anything and to wait for you guys to actually demonstrate your damned positions, rather than just command that we ascribe to them.

---

Well if you are interested in discussing why this is incorrect, I am happy to do so.  And if you think that my interpretation is incorrect, then let's discuss it from the source and not others interpretations.   However it seems that we Christians are at a loss, because you can pick any poor interpretation that fits your agenda, and then argue against that.   Am I aloud to do that with evolution?   I can argue against "the goo deciding to get up and walk into the zoo". and how silly that is!   And I don't see others prefacing their posts with "my interpretation" or citing which interpretation they are referring to.  So I find your post a bit dis-ingenuous.  However this is just my interpretation.

[Cyberman]

I can argue against "the goo deciding to get up and walk into the zoo". and how silly that is!

I doubt you'll find anyone here who would disagree.

[RoadRunner79]

I can understand being skeptical, but what claims of God do you think are contrary to Science.

lol. Are you kidding me? Where do I even begin? Oh, that's right - at the beginning, so - the creation myths. The clearly fabricated version of history presented in the bible. The EXISTENCE OF MAGIC (aka. miracles). And so on, and so forth.

I do find Some of Dawkins claims contrary to science, So I can just dismiss his fairy tales, attribute the claims as legends right?

If you want to disprove Dawkins' claims - you can try. All you have to do is make a coherent argument, following scientific process - just as he did. Of course - that would be hard and would require reading more than one book...
Nah - better stick to magical thinking, that even a child is capable of.

It would seem that I don't need to do any of those things... I'll just make claims of myth and magic and have a cheerleading squad to back me up.

[Godscreated]

TheRocketSurgeon

---

I say "if' for your benefit, if we as Christians are correct in what we believe then Dawkins is calling millions to an eternal punishment, a punishment far worse than wiping out mankind. Dawkins teaches people in the way of their punishment. If we're right then Dawkins is your enemy.

GC

---

As I pointed out in the other thread, to which you replied, a God which punishes nonbelievers with eternal torture...

God doesn't torture, He sentence's you to an eternal punishment you have chosen, you actually choose the punishment you will suffer by how you lived your life here. Just as a murder chooses his punishment by breaking the law to a certain degree, the judge sentences him to that choice. You break God's law and seek not forgiveness you without a doubt will serve the eternal punishment you chose and made for your self.  

 is not one whom a rational and honorable person would choose to worship. If your God is what you claim, then he is a monster and I thank Dawkins for his work in showing what a monstrous claim is being made by the Christian sects.

So you believe I'm not rational or honorable, you judge me without even getting to know me, you do so without a absolute standard, though you take Dawkins as absolute authority, a man without any absolute standards.
You call God a monster, why, because He wants you to live a purposeful life, one that He knows will make you joyful. You call Him this because you would rather live in sinfulness ie. rebel against Him. God offers you an eternal life, Dawkins offers you an eternal punishment, your choice, to follow a fallible man or an omniscient loving God.

I prefer to think of it in terms of Thomas Jefferson's admonishment to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

This is no different than Dawkins. This president took advantage of his female slaves and fell in love with the godless French thinking. So I say again follow a fallible man or the God who wants you to spend an eternal life of great joy with Him, again your choice will give you either an eternal punishment you choice and the eternal torment you choose by your life without God and his forgiveness, or a joyful eternal life with God.

GC

[Godscreated]

[...] If we're right then Dawkins is your enemy.

Then it's a damn good thing, that you're not, isn't it?

I'm most definitely correct.

GC

[Godscreated]

I say "if' for your benefit, if we as Christians are correct in what we believe then Dawkins is calling millions to an eternal punishment, a punishment far worse than wiping out mankind. Dawkins teaches people in the way of their punishment. If we're right then Dawkins is your enemy.

GC

Calling? Do you think Dawkins is Lucifer or something?

He is being used by Satan.

GC

[GrandizerII]

Then it's a damn good thing, that you're not, isn't it?

I'm most definitely correct.

GC

You're most definitely incorrect. I know this for a fact.

[GrandizerII]

Calling? Do you think Dawkins is Lucifer or something?

He is being used by Satan.

GC

Making things up along the way is a sign of lack of intellectual integrity.

[Godscreated]

He is being used by Satan.

GC

Making things up along the way is a sign of lack of intellectual integrity.

So says the intellectually challenged Irrational atheist who knows nothing about God or Satan. Until you can argue from knowledge of scriptures you should stay home.

GC

GC

[Esquilax]

Well if you are interested in discussing why this is incorrect, I am happy to do so.  And if you think that my interpretation is incorrect, then let's discuss it from the source and not others interpretations.   However it seems that we Christians are at a loss, because you can pick any poor interpretation that fits your agenda, and then argue against that. 

I think I speak for most of the others here- though of course they're free to join in and correct me if they so wish- when I say that we try to argue from the words that are actually in the bible, without having to deal with the arcane eisegesis of those already committed to making the text fit with their own lives. Without adequate justification or knowledge of the original authorial intent, the only thing we can safely presume to be a part of scriptural teachings are the words within the bible, which express unambiguously that disbelief in Jesus is an unforgivable sin that will keep us out of heaven. The problem comes from christians like you who are more than happy to swoop down and disagree, without giving any form of justification that might show you to be right; were essentially left with no reason to believe you, while also being scoffed at about how poor our knowledge of the bible is.

 

Am I aloud to do that with evolution?   I can argue against "the goo deciding to get up and walk into the zoo". and how silly that is!   And I don't see others prefacing their posts with "my interpretation" or citing which interpretation they are referring to.  So I find your post a bit dis-ingenuous.  However this is just my interpretation.

I'm not asking that we have these discussions where anyone just picks whatever definition they like and run with it, that'd be ridiculous. All I ask is that you a: relinquish the presupposition that what you think the scriptures say is the only legitimate reading of them, and that b: where our interpretations diverge, we all support our ideas with a little more evidence than nothing at all. It's no accident, you'll find, that every interpretation of the bible you see in this thread from atheists has a little more meat on them bones than just "you're wrong though," which was all you saw fit to contribute in the post I initially quoted, or "I'm right though," which is all your fellow theist GC ever posts. Explain why you think the way you do and there's absolutely no issue; just saying that you're right and we're wrong is effectively the same as saying nothing at all. What you think is less important than why you think it.