Can Atheists Correctly Interpret the Meaning of Scripture?

It would seem that you have become subserviant to your base desires and seek nothing higher. OK. I'll let you. It is between you and God anyway.

 

It is not – as I mentioned in another post here: you don’t have to be religious to study theology.. In fact I keep citing my old NT-Professor (himself a religious man): “Faith is one thing, science is the other”. (On occasion that some of my more evangelical students got upset about the scientific findings he taught us about)
What faith may be necessary for is preaching. Which is why part of my Churches liturgy involves praying for the pastor to be guided by the Holy Spirit. In order to get ordained as a pastor in the first place you are expected to know about research/textual criticism etc. though – i.e. hold an acknowledged degree in theology.

Admittedly the Catholic Church at first has had its difficulties in accepting the progress made in historical-critical exegesis from the 19th century onwards by mostly Protestant researchers, but I should hope that these days Catholic Faculties teach its basic methods in pretty much the same ways as Protestant Faculties do. I can imagine that Catholic Bible-scholars feel inclined to formulate their findings more carefully though, lest they should be scrutinized by the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”.

That’s what textual criticism is all about: finding which reading of a given Biblical text is likely to be closest to the original, which changes were made and why. And as far as I’m aware of you won’t deeply dwell on such a tedious job in comparative religious studies, you dwell on it as part of Biblical studies when studying theology. I don’t know about the OT but concerning the NT these days even Catholic scholars mostly use the Nestle-Aland “Novum Testamentum Graece”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece edited by the “Institute for New Testament Textual Research” that happens to be hosted by my former faculty. Nobody will expect you to subscribe to a certain creed when working there, all you need to be is an expert in your field. In other words: you need to be a nerd, that's all.

Imho, it would be misinterpretation if the Catholic Church tried to base its Priests’ celibacy on Scripture, but as far as I’m aware of it doesn’t. It bases it on Church tradition. In fact mandatory celibacy for priests has not even made it into Catholic doctrine yet. Thus of all the things the Catholic Church should reform in my eyes, getting rid of the celibacy should be the easiest one. In there already are some married Catholic Priests: http://www.wgrz.com/rss/article/197462/37/Married-Father-Of-Three-To-Become-Catholic-Priest
When you study theology in Germany you learn about these things in “Church History” and “Church Doctrine” by the way, even if you study Catholic theology . And I can't imagine Austrian theology faculties are that different from ours.

 

Because being Christian doesn’t necessarily save you from being a self-righteous gob(*)(*)(*)(*)e. The same holds true for being atheist. And gob(*)(*)(*)(*)es go strong in internet forums such as this one.

I’m not even excluding myself. I've caught myself 'gob(*)(*)(*)(*)ing' many times here, and there may be more occasions of which I'm not even aware. I can think of a couple of master-gob(*)(*)(*)(*)e-posters, both theist and atheist, who'll beat me at it any time though .

P.S.: Such a beautiful Irish word cruelly destroyed by the profanity filter!

 

Abraham knew God is, atheists do not.

 

There is only one God, and yes, I was blessed enough to be called by him into his saving grace. Indeed, I am fortunate. I pray that same fortue befalls you as well.

 

It would seem that you're full of hot air.

 

I can go along with that.

 

...if not I would be dead...

Though I am certain that you meant that as an insult I must take this opportunity to let you know that I am niether insulted or offended. I used to be like you, in some ways I suppose I still am, but I am being perfected. I would like to illiminate the obvious hostility that you use in addressing me. If you fell you must, OK, but I think we will have better conversations if it does not exist. What do you think?

- - - Updated - - -

Whewww! I was not sure where you coming from for a moment.

 

What do I think? I think you're pretentious and passive aggressive. We'd have better conversations if you actually addressed my points a few posts ago instead of taking the opportunity to insult me, get passive aggressive, and then follow it up by pretending you're above hostility.

 

Again with the insults and hostility. I did not insult you, I was looking for honest conversation. You are convinced that God does not exist, and attempt the thwart all arguments with denial. Whats in it for me? Nothing. Whats in it for God? Nothing. Whats in it for you? Nothing.

 

The title of this thread is moronic to say the least. How can a christian ask if atheists can correctly interpret scripture when no two of them agree on exactly what any of it means. If the scripture is so plain how come christians need 33,000 denominations to explain it?

 

The church tradition didn't implement celibacy, pope Benedict VIII. did. If that man hadn't done that, celibacy probably wouldn't be as widely spread as it is. You have priests who're married indeed, but the majority do the practice celibacy. Now if you say "it's based on church tradition" it's the subjective reasoning the church or firm theists would present, but it's not the reason why so many practice it. The roots of the celibacy for priests can be clearly traced back to pope Benedict VIII.

If you tell priests that they practice celibacy because of a middle age law which goal it was to protect the churches wealth, fewer might practice it than saying "it's based on church tradition" and forgetting to mention that "it wasn't really church tradition the first 1000 years".

Like I said, the field of theology teaches the faith, while religious studies is more science based where objectivity is the goal. So theology should enhance your faith not make you loose it, hence they'd not talk about certain little details.

 

Yawn...

 

Makes sense.
Since no two Christians agree suggests that Christian have not been able to correct interpret scripture, the job may well be left to the harlots and the publicans:

Matthew 21:31
Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.




I know that it is these people, atheists of the moment, to whom I appeal.
This I do because they have not yet invested their belief in any interpretation.

On the other hand, the Christians have and defend the propaganda of their Faith, which must obviously be wrong due to the evidence of their own contradictions of one another,

 

The way you write sure doesnt match your avatar, I wonder why you chose it.

 

My avatar is fighting Joe the mascot of the Cav Scouts, "Scouts out"!

I am unclear how an avatar indicates writing style or content.

 

No answer, huh?

 

You're being deceitful, as I have already pointed out. Your claim that you talked to God relies on the premise that God exists. Go back to your "I'm illogical and irrational!", excuse.

 

Yes, and in our minds he is a fictional character in a book, so your pleading that his nature or actions can't be questioned is faulty.

 

Just like in the other thread 'invisible' is not a scientific term... but scientists are actively finding that the myth is potentially true and is discovering that to a small degree can be replicated. So in view of your comments above (highlighted) why is science not pursuing the 'God' myth with as much vigor as they are 'invisibility'? Insufficient data? Hmmmm... where does data come from.....? Research, observation, testing, what is that process called? Oh yeah.... the Scientific Method.

 

What's your point?

 

The point was a challenge issued to you for you to answer the questions posed in my post.

 

Looked like you answered your own questions.

 

Really? Where did I answer those questions?

 

"So in view of your comments above (highlighted) why is science not pursuing the 'God' myth with as much vigor as they are 'invisibility'? Insufficient data? Hmmmm... where does data come from.....? Research, observation, testing, what is that process called? Oh yeah.... the Scientific Method."

The bolded portions are the answers to your questions.