How to not sound conceited about the Bible making sense?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most people, when they say, "It makes sense", they mean: "Most of it makes sense, and the parts that don't are insignificant."

Let me try again:

A written work could make sense as a work of poetry but not as a historical account. OTOH, a work could make sense as a historical account but not as a work of poetry.

Something that makes sense as repair instructions for a car won't make sense as a recipe for a cake. Something that makes sense as a recipe for a cake won't make sense as repair instructions for a car.

Saying that something "makes sense" is meaningless unless how you're interpreting the thing is clear.

 

[dybmh]

Let me try again:

A written work could make sense as a work of poetry but not as a historical account. OTOH, a work could make sense as a historical account but not as a work of poetry.

Something that makes sense as repair instructions for a car won't make sense as a recipe for a cake. Something that makes sense as a recipe for a cake won't make sense as repair instructions for a car.

Saying that something "makes sense" is meaningless unless how you're interpreting the thing is clear.

" ...unless how you're interpreting the thing is clear."

• it's clear the OP is referring to understanding religious content
  • not history
  • not poetry
  • not car maintenance
  • not recipes

 

[PureX]

Let’s say it actually does make sense to me. Is it ever okay to actually say it makes sense to me, or is that too bold a statement & should instead make it appear as if I’m in the same boat as most who struggle to understand it?

I would think the solution to not sound conceited is to share what I’ve learned so that others understand it too, but doing so would still seemingly have the opposite effect on those who still see no sense in it even after explanations are given.

I would think the appropriate response would to stop BEING conceited and recognize that your interpretation and understanding of the text is just your own.

To them, it would just look like I’m rubbing in their face the fact that something obvious to me is oblivious to them, when that’s not the desired outcome.

Actually, to "them" you will just look the arrogant fool by dismissing their point of view so automatically. And anyway, where are all these people that claim they do not understand the Bible? Seems to me pretty much everyone thinks they know what it is and what it says, whether they do or not.

Or even if I respond in an understanding manner to their lack of understanding, it still comes off as if I’m looking down at them as me being the “smarter” one, when that’s not the case.

Well, yes. Because you are. It is the case. You just don't see it.

Are there people who aren’t insulted from not grasping something that someone else has a greater understanding of?

Very few. But it depends on the subject. If the subjects are art or religion, EVERYONE thinks they know ALL ABOUT IT.

 

[Audie]

Let me try again:

A written work could make sense as a work of poetry but not as a historical account. OTOH, a work could make sense as a historical account but not as a work of poetry.

Something that makes sense as repair instructions for a car won't make sense as a recipe for a cake. Something that makes sense as a recipe for a cake won't make sense as repair instructions for a car.

Saying that something "makes sense" is meaningless unless how you're interpreting the thing is clear.

Someone who won’t even say if he thinks there was a literal flood has no actual intention of making sense.

 

[Vinayaka]

Let’s say it actually does make sense to me. Is it ever okay to actually say it makes sense to me, or is that too bold a statement & should instead make it appear as if I’m in the same boat as most who struggle to understand it?

I would think the solution to not sound conceited is to share what I’ve learned so that others understand it too, but doing so would still seemingly have the opposite effect on those who still see no sense in it even after explanations are given. To them, it would just look like I’m rubbing in their face the fact that something obvious to me is oblivious to them, when that’s not the desired outcome.

Or even if I respond in an understanding manner to their lack of understanding, it still comes off as if I’m looking down at them as me being the “smarter” one, when that’s not the case.

Are there people who aren’t insulted from not grasping something that someone else has a greater understanding of?

For example, if there were someone way better than me in chess and I couldn’t understand their explanation about something no matter how many times they explained it to me, I could accept that they understand something that I can’t grasp yet, without feeling insulted. Are there any people like this too when it comes to the Bible?

I personally never take offense when someone thinks it’s me who does not understand the Bible. At that point, I would like to ask questions if they allow, but I don’t see why things ever need to end in personal attacks or feeling personally attacked over something like that.

What is the correct approach to explaining something that someone asks that others don’t understand in the hopes that they understand? Unless it’s just a risk to expect someone to be insulted and to react if the result is that they don’t understand in the end.

I think conceit often comes across in your choice of words. Presenting it as your opinion rather than as fact is a starter. Then again, lots of people can misinterpret conceit. For example, confidence is close to conceit, but not quite the same. (In my view)

 

[dybmh]

Someone who won’t even say if he thinks there was a literal flood has no actual intention of making sense.

it's off topic

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are there people who aren’t insulted from not grasping something that someone else has a greater understanding of?

I don't find you conceited for thinking that you understand scripture better than others. I feel that way myself. I believe I understand it better than any believer.

Unlike those who see a god in that book, I believe that it is the work of man and contains many errors of history and science. I think its prophecies are mundane and signify nothing of value. I think it frequently contradicts itself. I think it depicts the deity as immoral, unintelligent, and incompetent. I think that much of the advice is offers is bad.

I presume that most Abrahamists would disagree. I used to keep a list of the many ways in which I was told by believers that I don't understand scripture and was thus unqualified to critique it as I just did. They might consider me conceited, but I don't see them that way. I see them as gullible and willing to believe uncritically, and defensive to hostile when I offer my criticisms.

Have you heard of the courtier's reply, a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to offer any sort of criticism whatsoever? You're about to see a ton of it:

[34] You and others like you can't understand because you're not permitted to unless/until you repent and confess Christ as LORD.

[35] The power of the gospel is designed to frustrate the wisdom of the wise.

[36] It's so damn cute when atheists reach for their Bible to make their point. I love it!

[37] I would question the person who thinks that you understand even one page of any Bible. Without first learning the language how could you.

[38] It requires theological understanding. You don't have that. I do.

[39] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.

[40] the typical oblivious understanding of an atheist, in their incessant attempt to try and undermine the wisdom of the Bible.

[41] You get your biblical passages from Atheist web sites.

[43] Don't bother quoting Scripture to me, atheist. You don't even know what you're doing.

[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.

[45] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.

[46] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.

[47] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.

[48] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.

[49] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.

[50] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana

[51] You need Jehovah’s approval to understand His word.

.​

 

[Audie]

I don't find you conceited for thinking that you understand scripture better than others. I feel that way myself. I believe I understand it better than any believer.

Unlike those who see a god in that book, I believe that it is the work of man and contains many errors of history and science. I think its prophecies are mundane and signify nothing of value. I think it frequently contradicts itself. I think it depicts the deity as immoral, unintelligent, and incompetent. I think that much of the advice is offers is bad.

I presume that most Abrahamists would disagree. I used to keep a list of the many ways in which I was told by believers that I don't understand scripture and was thus unqualified to critique it as I just did. They might consider me conceited, but I don't see them that way. I see them as gullible and willing to believe uncritically, and defensive to hostile when I offer my criticisms.

Have you heard of the courtier's reply, a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to offer any sort of criticism whatsoever? You're about to see a ton of it:

[34] You and others like you can't understand because you're not permitted to unless/until you repent and confess Christ as LORD.​

​

[35] The power of the gospel is designed to frustrate the wisdom of the wise.​

​

[36] It's so damn cute when atheists reach for their Bible to make their point. I love it!​

​

[37] I would question the person who thinks that you understand even one page of any Bible. Without first learning the language how could you.​

​

[38] It requires theological understanding. You don't have that. I do.​

​

[39] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.​

​

[40] the typical oblivious understanding of an atheist, in their incessant attempt to try and undermine the wisdom of the Bible.​

​

[41] You get your biblical passages from Atheist web sites.​

​

[43] Don't bother quoting Scripture to me, atheist. You don't even know what you're doing.​

​

[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.​

​

[45] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.​

​

[46] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.​

​

[47] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.​

​

[48] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.​

​

[49] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.​

​

[50] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana​

​

[51] You need Jehovah’s approval to understand His word.​

.​

I’m with you, that a “ believer” is the last one to be able to
understand ye bible.

 

[dybmh]

I used to keep a list of the many ways in which I was told by believers that I don't understand scripture and was thus unqualified to critique it as I just did.

...

Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.

Ignorance is a good reason to consider one unqualified to make critique. That's why knowledge of scripture, ( quotes, chapter, and verse ) are the "currency of the realm" in online scriptural debates. The non-believer is almost always at a disadvantage because they don't know the scripture as well as the believer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

" ...unless how you're interpreting the thing is clear."

• it's clear the OP is referring to understanding religious content
  • not history
  • not poetry
  • not car maintenance
  • not recipes

The analogy went over your head. That's okay.

There are many, many ways to interpret a piece of religious scripture. There's lots of disagreement between believers about how to interpret the Bible - and even about what constitutes "the Bible".

What someone means when they say "the Bible makes sense" will depend on what assumptions they hold about the Bible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ignorance is a good reason to consider one unqualified to make critique.

Agreed.

So is confirmation bias.

The non-believer is almost always at a disadvantage because they don't know the scripture as well as the believer.

Disagree.

It's not a matter of how often one reads scripture or how much of it one has memorized, but rather, the eyes through which the words are read and understood. I can read scripture without prejudice. The zealous believer brings a priori assumptions to the process that deform it and sees the words through a confirmation bias. He sees what he wants to see. He can never call any of it error or self-contradictory (incoherent). He will always find a way to rationalize that it is otherwise and use other language.

That's what comments like "Most of it makes sense, and the parts that don't are insignificant" or "Most of it makes sense, the parts that don't are either insignificant or add to the mystery, magnitude, and splendor of the story" are meant to do - dismiss error and contradiction as insignificant or even beautiful.

That's what calling those two creation myths allegory or metaphor is intended to do, when they are not allegories or metaphors. They're wrong guesses like all other creation myths, something Abrahamists would quickly say about the Viking creation myth.

The skeptic is not encumbered with that confirmation bias and is free to come to whatever conclusion the evidence warrants. When the believer sees the six days of creation and is unwilling to call the account historical like the literalist, he says that a day doesn't really mean a day, whereas the skeptic says that they guessed incorrectly.

I've read the Bible cover to cover three times as a young believer, and I have always been an apt student. I defer to no believer's judgment on what its words mean.

In the past, these kinds of discussions between us lead you to anger. When I told you that I didn't believe that you had ever experienced a god as you had claimed and offered an alternative explanation for that belief based in personal experience, you took great offense. Hopefully, that won't happen again here.

Feel free to rebut if you choose, but if my words anger you, please do your best to keep that to yourself.

 

[dybmh]

The analogy went over your head. That's okay.

You're asking a question and ignoring the answer.

Have a nice day.

 

[Anttjuan]

Good point with that Jeremiah quote. I think between “already true” and “coming true,” it’s the latter (at least in terms of ultimate fulfillment) since most of the world does not know Him yet. We shall see though.

Seems to me like that is what the authors are suggesting, so my arguing with you is actually conceit not merely the appearance of it.


Going by what you say in the following quote? :

I'd say Christianity turns upon this hope in Jeremiah 31:34 "No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest...." It is supposed to be true or coming true. Jesus says the kingdom is now come, so there is this tension between worlds one that is melting away (where we teach each other) and one that is coming to be (or is here already in faith). Some people deny that Jesus has accomplished anything and point to the present world as evidence. The previous world relies upon proper teaching, but Jesus new creation does not. There is a problem with living in two worlds one that is going away and one that is becoming real, and this is part of the rub. You are in a world that is in flux, so it always seems in one world like you should be explaining things yet in another this is boasting against God. You will continually encounter people trying to live in both worlds, because they cannot let go of the one to live in the other. So it is a choice between seeing the world one way or another.

 

[dybmh]

So is confirmation bias.

The antidote to confirmation bias is quoting the text, chapter and verse without denying any other related verses. This is where the bible critics almost always fail. They ignore and deny what is written in the text that they claim to know better than the bible-believer.

It's not a matter of how often one reads scripture or how much of it one has memorized,

You just contradicted yourself.

You've agreed that ignorance disqualifies the speaker as credible. But, you're also defending ignorance such that ignorance does not disqualify the credibility of the speaker.

So which is it? Can one who is ignorant of science make claims about evolution and expect to be respected as someone who knows what they're talking about?

That's what comments like "Most of it makes sense, and the parts that don't are insignificant" or "Most of it makes sense, the parts that don't are either insignificant or add to the mystery, magnitude, and splendor of the story" are meant to do - dismiss error and contradiction as insignificant or even beautiful.

1) If you're ignorant of the text, you'll never know what's a contradiction or a problem.

2) If these so-called problems are petty, it's valid to dismiss them.

 

[Audie]

Ignorance is a good reason to consider one unqualified to make critique. That's why knowledge of scripture, ( quotes, chapter, and verse ) are the "currency of the realm" in online scriptural debates. The non-believer is almost always at a disadvantage because they don't know the scripture as well as the believer.

The believer is at a gross disadvantage because they have to try to defend nonsense.

You can spend a lifetime in a monastrry on Noah’s ark.
the believers’ commitment to intellectual dishonesty
will prevent any actual understanding.

But anyone with a modest
education and ability to think can see its nonsense

the more education, the more ways to see
how bonkers it is.

 

[GoodAttention]

Good point with that Jeremiah quote. I think between “already true” and “coming true,” it’s the latter (at least in terms of ultimate fulfillment) since most of the world does not know Him yet. We shall see though.

See now, what is conceited in your comment is you putting your words before and also above the person you are quoting or responding to.

 

[dybmh]

The believer is at a gross disadvantage because they have to try to defend nonsense.

We don't need to defend anything.

 

[Anttjuan]

I still don't know what you mean by "makng sense." You're telling me that your interpretation works but you haven't said anything about what your interpretation is.

I mean, do you think your interpretation "makes sense" because:

- you've decided that all the problematic stuff was intended to be taken non-literally?

- you think the problematic stuff can be reconciled with reality (but haven't bothered to check whether it does)?

- you think the problematic stuff can be reconciled with reality (because you have an "alternative" take on reality)?

- something else?

Well thank you for that 4th option of “something else.” It’s interesting to see how with every option that you gave me with the word “reality” in it, you had to add, “haven’t bothered to check” and, “an ‘alternative’ take on reality” in parentheses.

But yes, you are correct to say that I haven’t said much about my side of making sense, but that’s because I didn’t want to make it about that yet. I was originally just wondering about how a person, to whom the Bible actually makes sense to, should approach things when someone cannot make sense of it & when the reasons are obvious why. Do we just let them continue in their oblivion, or do we try to point out what they’re missing while possibly risking sounding “superior” and triggering them if in the end they still don’t see it?

As I talk about this tho, I think the answer is it depends on how hopeful it looks that they might understand. But if they’re full bent on something like: “The Bible makes no sense because it’s no different than Harry Potter,” then it would probably be wise to just leave it at that for them, as opposed to if someone said: “The Bible makes no sense because what’s the point of a resurrection if people are already in heaven or hell when they die?”

I see greater hope in the latter that they’ll understand if the answer is explained to them, and so that one could still be worth the risk. But having said that, it truly is a risk at the end of the day because they could still come back with: “You think you’re so smart. Nice try” or something like that. I fall for this a LOT when I answer to people online who may seem sincere at first, only for me to be replied back with something like “[insert clown faces]”. It makes me laugh now when I fall for it, but in real life there is a greater gauge of sincerity and thus I have greater success there as a result.

I don’t think you would reply something like that to me, but I do think you might be of the category where I should just leave it at that for now since again, the only options for “reality” that you gave me were followed by “haven’t bothered to check” and “because you have an ‘alternative’ take on reality.” You’ve aired what the general bounds of your limitations are. And what I would share would be beyond those limitations. But to be fair to you, you at least gave me that small final option of “something else”. That one is the answer.

I could perhaps elaborate about that on a different thread one day, but really, it isn’t something mind blowing or foreign to us anyway. It’s right up our alley of everyday living, so it should be familiar to us all anyway (if of course the bias isn’t something like “it must be wrong at all cost if the Bible says so”). There is too much in the Bible that is in line with reality, and even the parts that seem like they aren’t, only make sense when taking reality into account. Again, I hope to further elaborate in the future some time.

 

[Anttjuan]

See now, what is conceited in your comment is you putting your words before and also above the person you are quoting or responding to.

How so? I made clear that my stance is my opinion. I did not say “this is what it is, case closed.”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well thank you for that 4th option of “something else.” It’s interesting to see how with every option that you gave me with the word “reality” in it, you had to add, “haven’t bothered to check” and, “an ‘alternative’ take on reality” in parentheses.

But yes, you are correct to say that I haven’t said much about my side of making sense, but that’s because I didn’t want to make it about that yet. I was originally just wondering about how a person, to whom the Bible actually makes sense to, should approach things when someone cannot make sense of it & when the reasons are obvious why. Do we just let them continue in their oblivion, or do we try to point out what they’re missing while possibly risking sounding “superior” and triggering them if in the end they still don’t see it?

As I talk about this tho, I think the answer is it depends on how hopeful it looks that they might understand. But if they’re full bent on something like: “The Bible makes no sense because it’s no different than Harry Potter,” then it would probably be wise to just leave it at that for them, as opposed to if someone said: “The Bible makes no sense because what’s the point of a resurrection if people are already in heaven or hell when they die?”

I see greater hope in the latter that they’ll understand if the answer is explained to them, and so that one could still be worth the risk. But having said that, it truly is a risk at the end of the day because they could still come back with: “You think you’re so smart. Nice try” or something like that. I fall for this a LOT when I answer to people online who may seem sincere at first, only for me to be replied back with something like “[insert clown faces]”. It makes me laugh now when I fall for it, but in real life there is a greater gauge of sincerity and thus I have greater success there as a result.

I don’t think you would reply something like that to me, but I do think you might be of the category where I should just leave it at that for now since again, the only options for “reality” that you gave me were followed by “haven’t bothered to check” and “because you have an ‘alternative’ take on reality.” You’ve aired what the general bounds of your limitations are. And what I would share would be beyond those limitations. But to be fair to you, you at least gave me that small final option of “something else”. That one is the answer.

I could perhaps elaborate about that on a different thread one day, but really, it isn’t something mind blowing or foreign to us anyway. It’s right up our alley of everyday living, so it should be familiar to us all anyway (if of course the bias isn’t something like “it must be wrong at all cost if the Bible says so”). There is too much in the Bible that is in line with reality, and even the parts that seem like they aren’t, only make sense when taking reality into account. Again, I hope to further elaborate in the future some time.

Usually, people who are being evasive don't make posts as long as this one.