Do We Need Three?

[Enoch07]

Im not changing what you said, as to me saying they dont understand completely or dont have the same understanding of a believer are both biased cop outs, which have no place in a dialogue between informed and intelligent people who respect each other.
If you can provide evidence, that you as a believer have an understanding of the Bible that I as a secular person will never have, please present your evidence, I find it rather offensive to claim such, especially since I have spent time reading and studying the Bible both in its original Hebrew, and in English since childhood.

Proof is that most non-believers do not know basic teachings in the Bible. I have asked several questions to non-believers throughout these forums and not many have given the correct answers. Which is the only proof I can offer up. You might be different, who knows. There is always exception to the rules. But if you think you have the same understanding as me then, my original statement should not have upset you. Or as you put it. An offensive claim. It was not meant to be offensive at all and for that I apologize, but I still stand by it.

I thought of an example maybe you can understand better. If Stephen Hawking came up to me and said I could never understand physics as well as him, I would have to agree. Because he is a man of science. I find science fascinating and admit most of it is beneficiary to human kind. But that does not make me a man of science. I will never grasp his knowledge of physics. Because I am a man of God. I deal with the supernatural/unexplainable the best I can. And for a non-believer to say they have the same understanding of the Bible as me is offensive to me. Just as offensive as it would be for me tell Stephen Hawking I have the same amount of knowledge in physics as him, just because I dabbed a little in it here and there. That is best I can think to describe it. And I mean no offense to anyone. It is just my opinion.

 

[ChristineES]

You have to remember that anyone who is an atheist will not take anything by faith, but with proof. They may understand the Bible, they can read it, and they can study it, but to them it is more like Aesop's Fables or Grimm Brothers fairy tales.

 

[Tristesse]

Proof is that most non-believers do not know basic teachings in the Bible. I have asked several questions to non-believers throughout these forums and not many have given the correct answers. Which is the only proof I can offer up. You might be different, who knows. There is always exception to the rules. But if you think you have the same understanding as me then, my original statement should not have upset you. Or as you put it. An offensive claim. It was not meant to be offensive at all and for that I apologize, but I still stand by it.

I thought of an example maybe you can understand better. If Stephen Hawking came up to me and said I could never understand physics as well as him, I would have to agree. Because he is a man of science. I find science fascinating and admit most of it is beneficiary to human kind. But that does not make me a man of science. I will never grasp his knowledge of physics. Because I am a man of God. I deal with the supernatural/unexplainable the best I can. And for a non-believer to say they have the same understanding of the Bible as me is offensive to me. Just as offensive as it would be for me tell Stephen Hawking I have the same amount of knowledge in physics as him, just because I dabbed a little in it here and there. That is best I can think to describe it. And I mean no offense to anyone. It is just my opinion.

I hope when you say non-believers, you are also including muslims, jews, hindus, buddahs and so forth. They too, do not believe in the same doctrine. It's not just atheists. Although, most atheists don't believe in all religions equally. I don't think your claims were at all offensive, misguided perhaps, but not offensive. If it's unexplainable, than how could you possibly know about it, or grasp it? And to claim that you do, is dishonest, because then it must not, by definition be unexplainable.

 

[Imagist]

I thought of an example maybe you can understand better. If Stephen Hawking came up to me and said I could never understand physics as well as him, I would have to agree. Because he is a man of science. I find science fascinating and admit most of it is beneficiary to human kind. But that does not make me a man of science. I will never grasp his knowledge of physics. Because I am a man of God. I deal with the supernatural/unexplainable the best I can. And for a non-believer to say they have the same understanding of the Bible as me is offensive to me. Just as offensive as it would be for me tell Stephen Hawking I have the same amount of knowledge in physics as him, just because I dabbed a little in it here and there. That is best I can think to describe it. And I mean no offense to anyone. It is just my opinion.

Stephen Hawking is able to understand physics because he studied and researched physics. If you studied and researched physics, you would be able to understand physics too. Maybe not as well as Stephen Hawking, but that's only because he's one of the top people in his field and very gifted. I venture, however, that you would be able to at least discuss very high-level topics with him.

The bible is the same way. I would venture that you probably aren't the Stephen Hawking of biblical studies, so I don't see any reason why an average person with reasonable study couldn't learn just as much about the bible as you know. In fact, I present that I have studied the bible a great deal (I read the entire bible more than five times, in addition to other related reading) and I probably know just as much about the bible as you do, if not more. The fact that I don't believe everything in it doesn't have anything to do with my understanding of it.