To understand and accept the Bible, yes, one must be a Christian. Understanding and accepting the Bible makes one a Christian. But you are asking "Can a non-Christian understand the Bible"? Perhaps. I certainly didn't before I was a Christian. I've only seen one non-Christian in these forums who showed a grasp of Christian theology and she doesn't post here anymore. I don't even remember her name, but we shared several very nice and polite emails. She didn't believe, but she understood. I could respect her for that. So I guess a non-Christian can grasp some, most or even all of Christian theology, but it's very VERY rare. No non-Christian posting in the forums now understands Christian theology. I'm not saying that as an insult, it's a statement of fact. If I was pontificating on what Hindus believed and a Hindu said "You don't know what you are talking about, everything you are saying is wrong!", my pride might be stung, but I wouldn't call him a liar.

Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Either one must be a Christian to understand what the Bible says or not. You clearly already made that claim.

Do you still endorse it?

No. Right and Wrong. Truth and Lie are objective, not subjective. While we may not know the right or wrong of a situation, there is definitely a single right and everything else is wrong. In the same way, in any situation, there is a truth and everything else is not-truth. I know that's not a popular stance now adays, everyone wants to believe in relativism. But there it is.

Rarely, a non-Christian who used to be a Christian will show a grasp for much of the Bible. Since I didn't grill the woman in question, she might not have completely understood the Bible. So I can't give you an absolute answer. If I only had the people who currently post here to go by, I would say it is absolutely impossible for a non-Christian to understand the Bible. That's the best answer I can give you. I amend my earlier answer to say "Sometimes a non-Christian can show a good grasp of some of Christian theology, but usually their understanding of Christian theology is wildly inaccurate."

If you cannot give an absolute answer now, then perhaps it was rather unwise then to approach AB and myself with such an absolute attitude about what you think it takes to understand the Bible?

Next...

Are you still going to argue a position which holds that the Ten Commandments are not civil/ceremonial laws?

The statement that a person has to be Christian to read and understand the bible is false.

To be Christian means that you revere the text as messages from god through man.

Well, Spider has clearly admitted that one must not necessarily be a Christian in order to understand what the Bible says, and to his credit has amended his earlier claim.

Not when it comes to belief in an ambiguous book written as stories by men of old.

The only definite is that is in written form and has been since men were able to write it down.

Other than that there is no definite at all when it comes to the bible it is all a personal right and wrong for each person reading it.

I didn't say you didn't understand it because you aren't Christians. I mainly think you don't understand it because you haven't read it. The Bible is a very large document and very difficult to read. People have spent lifetimes trying to understand it. I don't blame non-Christians for not understanding the Bible. If you don't believe in Jesus or God, then why would you put that much effort into understanding the Bible? Honestly, neither one of you have shown even a minimal grasp of what Christians believe. Once again, this isn't an insult, it's a statement of ignorance. You haven't educated yourself on Christianity, so you don't know what Christians believe. It's not a judgment of your character or intelligence. You can tell me that I know nothing about the breeding habits of howler monkeys and I'm not going to get upset, because it's true, I don't! Try to deal with the fact that you don't understand Christianity with a bit of maturity and introspection.



Yes, unequivocally.

The Civil laws included punishments. The ceremonial laws were largely the rituals and rights to be performed when one broke the moral laws. While the civil and ceremonial laws were all tied in one way or another to the moral laws, they were distinct.

Anybody can read the Bible. Anybody can understand the Bible. But the amount of effort required to understand the Bible is enormous. Very few non-Christians will ever exert that kind of effort. At a guess: one in a million at best.

You grilling someone on their understanding of the bible wouldn't guarentee that without your approval they are not understanding the bible either. Since it is a personal interpretation that happens with the bible anyway.

It is not that hard to understand and interpret.

I believe some flatter themselves into believing it a great accomplishment like the great Christian scholars who are giving their personal interpretation.

Now it can be hard to reconcile the hypocrisy in it I suppose. Or trying to make it fit a preconceived doctrine might be hard too, or getting through all the ambiguity to a solid form of information

The bible is very easy to understand and interpret...unless you want to accurately understand and interpret the scriptures.

For that, you'll need the Chesire Cat from Alice in Wonderland. And whatEVER you do, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

Sheesh, Christians have killed each other for a millennia over differing interpretations and doctrines derived from this book. The Paper Pope says whatever the Beholder wants it to say.

-Kerry O.

A reasonable person would say that if someone wrote a document, that they meant that document to convey specific facts, beliefs and concepts. It is therefore reasonable to try to grasp what the author tried to convey, which becomes more difficult as time passes. It is unreasonable to claim that any interpretation is reasonable and acceptable. The truth was what I just wrote should be self-evident.

No, you did not. What you did endorse was the idea that in order to be able to understand the Bible, one must be a Christian. That statement cannot be both true and false simutaneuosly. Therefore, by default alone, if one holds that that belief is true, then they must also believe that non-Christians cannot possibly understand the Bible. Since then, you've altered your original position.

Here is exactly how that original position tranpsired...



The evidence here speaks for itself, but having noticed the error you've altered your original position.



You're wrong.



"Are you still beating your wife?" is the same kind of question, Spider. It implies that beating is happening.

The act of putting forth the effort required to understand the Bible does not require belief in Jesus or God. Affirming the consequent does not cut with one who knows better Spider. Belief in God is not required in order to understand the concept of God which the Bible illustrates. I also note that concept is not the same as the Christian God. It seems that you've equated the two.



I could not have said the last statement better.

The fact is that I've offered nothing which suggests otherwise. In order to have shown a "minimal grasp of what Christians believe" I must only report some of those beliefs accurately. That has been done, including my understanding of some of your own. The fact that you do not endorse some of those aforementioned Christian beliefs does not make the fact that other Christians hold those beliefs go away.



This wronglfully presupposes that you possess knowledge of my education.

Not only did you earlier claim to speak for most Christians, but now you think that you're somehow justified in claiming to know what my educational background is? Subsequently presupposing that you also know what the extent of my knowledge base regarding Christianity may be?

It is quite clear to me that you haven't educated yourself enough to be able to realize that you have drawn conclusions based upon inadequate ground.



I am recognizing a habit of drawing conclusions regarding the current state of affairs based upon the evidence of 'facts' which are clearly not at hand.

So the singular fact that you haven't read or studied the Bible doesn't stop your interpretations from being as accurate as anyone elses, regardless of their level of education or experience in the subject matter. That seems to be your opinion. I respectfully disagree. I don't agree that you show any grasp of Christianity. Quite simply, you haven't. But I don't want to talk about you or me. I was refuting ignorant statements from you and AB. You have said nothing to address my refutation. You have simply tried to pick apart words and sentences. This isn't worth my time. I have said what I came to say. Let the troll flame war begin.

How funny.

It is easy for those who do not want to "accurately" interpret it.

Once again a case being presented based upon the 'evidence' of facts which are clearly not at hand. No flaming or trolling by me Spider. I'm trying to make sense of your claims.

Why do you keep repeating the falsehood that I have not read the Bible?

Those elusive facts.

When dealing with religion there aren't any facts other than that one person believes what is right for him and another believes what is right for him. No facts involved.