Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[Vansdad]

Irrational or baseless beliefs are naturally accorded sub-prime intellectual space.

But who is to say it is "baseless" or "irrational"? It may look that way to some and in reality may not be that way at all. It's almost like saying marriage is stupid and half end up in divorce so there's the proof. Often things look very different from the outside.

 

[Vansdad]

I'm jumping in late here, but do you honestly believe that ALL beliefs are equally subjective? in other words, do you think evidence-based beliefs are exactly as subjective as myth-based beliefs?

I didn't know there were any God based beliefs based on "evidence".

 

[Vansdad]

i would venture to say yes... as truth is understood subjectively
(when it comes to belief)

I would venture to say that is your opinion, which is no better than a belief. Majority rules but may not be right. The majority crucified Christ, for example

 

[Reverend Richard]

I have spent agreat deal of time on Islam and my Christian life has been quite different from yours. I was raised in church until my Christian mother got cancer, the sicker she got the madder at God I was. She finally passed away and me and God were mortal enemies. I joined the Navy and experienced quite a few things. Anything was fine except Christianity, drugs, philosophy, psychology, intellectualism, other religions, astral projection, spiritualism any thing but God. Well to cut this short. God wasn't done with me and after he got through with me I gave up and excepted Christ and had an unmistakable experience that has changed me forever. Since then I have went back and formally studied many of the things I used to believe in or on and have found them wanting in every respect. Anyway enough personal stuff. Didn't mean to bore you.

Nope. Wasn’t bored. And I’m sorry about the loss of your mother.
Like you, I had an “unmistakable experience” when I accepted Christ. However, it is not unusual that you and I can study the same things and come away with totally different conclusions. God seems to have a sense of humor that way. But I believe Christian theology puts limits on God.

God loves us totally? Okay, but God will send us to hell unless we….

That somehow doesn’t seem like love, it seems more like holding our souls ransom to a theology that was written by men, and interpreted by men. Most of whom were unknown, or, at minimum, writing “Gospels” and claiming to be someone they were not, and claiming to present “truth” through deceitful methods.

Well the God of Judaism and Islam is far more dictatorial.

This statement seems odd coming from a Baptist Christian. Are you claiming there are different Gods representing each of the Abrahamic religions? I was always taught there is just the One.

Where are you drawing this concept of a teddy bear God from? That was not sarcasm.

Where do you get the idea that God is something other than Love? Oh, yeah, from the Bible, where God is described as vengeful and jealous and sends us to Hell.

I also suspect that hell is more of an anihilation and seperation from God than a perpetual torture. In the end he gives us exactly what we chose.

Again, an odd statement coming from a Baptist. Not counting me, there are 3 ministers in my family (all Baptists) and they all believe in Hell as a physically torturous place.

My understanding of God comes from the life of Christ described this way.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

That is about what I believe God to be..

That’s very beautiful prose, but it uncovers no new theological truths.

........ It is all together fitting that God would perscribe one way by which man is reconciled and put it in one religion. If not then he apparently hid bits of truth in tons of garbage in many religions and I find that inconsistent with what I know..

God prescribes one way and one religion? This ignores the facts. God told Mohammed that we got it wrong, and sent the Quran as our “new” guide. Then God told Joseph Smith that we still had it wrong and sent the Book of Mormon as a new guide. They all claim to be inspired by God, so why would I not give them equal credibility? And if you say it's because they don't believe the Bible is the final Word, we're back to the circular argument again - trusting a book whose origins are known to be questionable at best.

I can't ever wrap my head around a person claiming to have been born again then to decide later that he doesn't believe in the premise that made his original claim true. Maybe it is just me but that just does not compute. Claiming I was saved now I no longer believe in salvation must mean something other than it seems.

It’s called changing your mind when you have new facts and more information, and is the basis for most reasoning skills. I don’t think it’s that difficult to figure out.

 

[Hawkins]

I didn't know there were any God based beliefs based on "evidence".

This is because historical events can hardly be evidence based. That's why the majority parts of human history among 1000 more nations on earth are basically not evidence based. By nature history itself is not evidence based. "Asking for evidence then disregard it" itself is a stupid approach (suiting stupid humans though) because by nature you won't have it. Human history is more or less about witnessing, so are the historical events. You choose to believe what was written by the historians in the case of human history, and choose to believe the witnesses in the case of any other historical events. Evidence (in the case that you acquired) can only be a bonus.

 

[waitasec]

I would venture to say that is your opinion, which is no better than a belief.

but of course.

Majority rules but may not be right. The majority crucified Christ, for example

which is why some beliefs are not created equal.

 

[Katzpur]

But I believe Christian theology puts limits on God.

In what way, Rev?

 

[1robin]

* nonsense, apologists.

I have no idea what this thought fragment means.

I had this exact same transformation after my first LSD trip, AND I still get to sleep in on Sundays and have lots of casual premarital sex. I win!

No you don't and no you didn't. At least treat the most profound subject in human history with the respect it deserves. This does your side no cedit. In fact it makes it worse.

I am pretty confident you would reconsider this position if you took the time to actually read the Bible. How can a book that continually contradicts itself be considered "infallible"? Where there is a contradiction, either one assertion is true and the other false, or both assertions are false. It's simply not possible for two contradictory assertions to both be true.

What contradiction?

Oh, my. Professional credibility is judged more by quality than quantity. I can write you a list of thousands of "deep thoughts" I've scribbled in my own feces on the walls of the asylum I live in, and a list of all the people I've argued with that you'd need to live longer than Methuselah to get through. I don't need any academic credentials of my own whatsoever to immediately recognize that these scribblings and arguments you've listed are not real "academic credentials".

I love how critics demand published work or peer review until you give it to them, or yell Argumentum ad populum unless it's about what the majority of scientists believe, and demand empiricle proof for supernatural events but can't supply it for many natural ones. Double standards are the trade of a loosing argument. I don't care what you have scribbled.

 

[1robin]

Nope. Wasn’t bored. And I’m sorry about the loss of your mother. Like you, I had an “unmistakable experience” when I accepted Christ. However, it is not unusual that you and I can study the same things and come away with totally different conclusions. God seems to have a sense of humor that way. But I believe Christian theology puts limits on God.

I agree that Christians have differeing interpretations on some issues but the real subject is the reliability of biblical text.

God loves us totally? Okay, but God will send us to hell unless we….

I think of it as similar to free will. God loves us to the point he allows us to reject him. He also gives us exactly what we chose. Eternal life with him or eternal seperation from him. I do not see a conflict between love and the granting of what we chose. I guess what Hell actually is would make the case.

That somehow doesn’t seem like love, it seems more like holding our souls ransom to a theology that was written by men, and interpreted by men. Most of whom were unknown, or, at minimum, writing “Gospels” and claiming to be someone they were not, and claiming to present “truth” through deceitful methods.

There is a lot of rigourus theology but IMO the only absolutly crucial issue is our faith in Christ. The rest is meaningfull and important but not critical as in where we spend eternity and so is second tier issues. This seems appropriate and logical.

This statement seems odd coming from a Baptist Christian. Are you claiming there are different Gods representing each of the Abrahamic religions? I was always taught there is just the One.

The Muslim God in my opinion is a disguised Satan. The Jewish God is the same but if our revelation of him is limited to the OT alone then it would paint a much sterner picture than with the NT included.

Where do you get the idea that God is something other than Love? Oh, yeah, from the Bible, where God is described as vengeful and jealous and sends us to Hell.

Again what Hell is will make a big difference as to the tone of this subject. God is absolute love and absolute justice. Justice dictates just action. The punishment of sin is just. It would have been far more unjust to allow a thousand generations of complete evil, Chaos, and depravity to reign on earth instead of what he did in the flood narrative.

Again, an odd statement coming from a Baptist. Not counting me, there are 3 ministers in my family (all Baptists) and they all believe in Hell as a physically torturous place.

I will admit that literal brim stone hell is the prevelant view, however as some one who has adopted things larger that traditional doctrine I would not think my interpretation would strain your understanding. Literal Hell was established as a tradition by the Catholic Church long ago to scare people into making them necessary and traditions die hard.

That’s very beautiful prose, but it uncovers no new theological truths.

It was an example of what even critics think of Christ.

God prescribes one way and one religion? This ignores the facts. God told Mohammed that we got it wrong, and sent the Quran as our “new” guide. Then God told Joseph Smith that we still had it wrong and sent the Book of Mormon as a new guide.

They are wrong.

They all claim to be inspired by God, so why would I not give them equal credibility? And if you say it's because they don't believe the Bible is the final Word, we're back to the circular argument again - trusting a book whose origins are known to be questionable at best

No matter what limitations or standards you apply to the bible correctly or incorrectly it beats all other religious texts in every category by many times over. If you wish to pick one I will show how they in particular have aspects that render them impossible or at least extremely unlikely as being from God.

It’s called changing your mind when you have new facts and more information, and is the basis for most reasoning skills. I don’t think it’s that difficult to figure out.

Your case is far less hard to understand than the one in which someone claims to have been born again but is currently an atheist. That one seems impossible yours just seems a little unnerving.

 

[Reverend Richard]

In what way, Rev?[/font][/color]

Hi Katz...

Because the Bible (especially the Old Testament), paints God as vengeful and jealous. Then Jesus comes along (according to the New Testament) to fulfill the prophecies made in the Old Testament. And according to New Testament tradition, those who do not accept Christ as lord an savior are sent to Hell to burn forever.

I view all "scripture" as coming from man, and not from God. I believe that man's view of who God is, versus who God actually is, are two very different things. Man made God in his own image, and not the other way around.

When I finally let go of the image of God as vengeful and wrathful (the way I had always been taught) I discovered a deeply spiritual and much happier way of relating to Him. My spiritual life has become much richer and I no longer live in fear of the made-up theology of Heaven vs. Hell. I have no evidence (nor any personal experience) that proves to me that God is anything other than Love and Hope.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., on what grounds does one claim infallibility of text whose authors are anonymous?

It is interesting to note how religiously 1robin avoids this question.

 

[Reverend Richard]

Reverend Richard said:

God prescribes one way and one religion? This ignores the facts. God told Mohammed that we got it wrong, and sent the Quran as our “new” guide. Then God told Joseph Smith that we still had it wrong and sent the Book of Mormon as a new guide.

They are wrong.

Oh. It's is difficult to argue with that statement...

 

[waitasec]

Oh. It's is difficult to argue with that statement...

not really, just ask him what standard does he use to determine his assertion is accurate.

i have and he never gets around to telling me, and now i'm on his ignore list as it seems...
so i guess your right, in the sense that it is difficult to argue with him

 

[1robin]

Reverend Richard said:

God prescribes one way and one religion? This ignores the facts. God told Mohammed that we got it wrong, and sent the Quran as our “new” guide. Then God told Joseph Smith that we still had it wrong and sent the Book of Mormon as a new guide.


Oh. It's is difficult to argue with that statement...

I told you in that post I would be happy if you picked one to show why it is false and they are wrong. To imply that my simple statement was the totality of my claim is disingenuous.

 

[Reverend Richard]

not really, just ask him what standard does he use to determine his assertion is accurate.

i have and he never gets around to telling me, and now i'm on his ignore list as it seems...
so i guess your right, in the sense that it is difficult to argue with him

Hi wait...

Well, I understand his standard. It seems to be to refute (tit-for-tat) any possible evidence that the Bible contains meaningful contradictions and errors. And the contraditions and error that it may contain are, at best, inconsequential, or can be explained away by a well-educated Christian scholar.

I think there is more than ample evidence through the scholarship of both avowed atheists as well as through "former" Christian scholars, that the Bible contains hundreds if not thousands of glaring contraditions and errors. Not to mention how many books are forgeries. Can they be explained away? Of course they can - especially by a devout Christian!

My personal belief is the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the debate. Atheists may overreach as to the true number of errors, as do the Christian scholars in terms of declaring any errors inconsequential. Neither side holds all the cards. But, and it's a big but, if devout Christians even acccept some middle-ground in terms Biblical inerrancy, it leaves them "holding the bag" in terms of their arguments. It's seems to be an all-or-nothing game for them.

 

[waitasec]

Hi wait...

Well, I understand his standard. It seems to be to refute (tit-for-tat) any possible evidence that the Bible contains meaningful contradictions and errors. And the contraditions and error that it may contain are, at best, inconsequential, or can be explained away by a well-educated Christian scholar.

I think there is more than ample evidence through the scholarship of both avowed atheists as well as through "former" Christian scholars, that the Bible contains hundreds if not thousands of glaring contraditions and errors. Not to mention how many books are forgeries. Can they be explained away? Of course they can - especially by a devout Christian!

My personal belief is the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the debate. Atheists may overreach as to the true number of errors, as do the Christian scholars in terms of declaring any errors inconsequential. Neither side holds all the cards. But, and it's a big but, if devout Christians even acccept some middle-ground in terms Biblical inerrancy, it leaves them "holding the bag" in terms of their arguments. It's seems to be an all-or-nothing game for them.

indeed.

everyone has a big but




i would venture to say that the reason it is all or nothing is to say that their faith is based on all or nothing and this of course applies to the atheist as well especially if one has an extreme personality.

there's nothing like allowing ones self to sit on the fence.

 

[Reverend Richard]

I told you in that post I would be happy if you picked one to show why it is false and they are wrong. To imply that my simple statement was the totality of my claim is disingenuous.

Don't call me disingenuous for answering a very short answer with a very short response.

 

[Reverend Richard]

indeed.

everyone has a big but




i would venture to say that the reason it is all or nothing is to say that their faith is based on all or nothing and this of course applies to the atheist as well especially if one has an extreme personality.

there's nothing like allowing ones self to sit on the fence.

And sometimes the fence is the best place to sit to get a view of both sides.

Addendum - By the way, are you calling my but big?

 

[1robin]

Hi wait...

Well, I understand his standard. It seems to be to refute (tit-for-tat) any possible evidence that the Bible contains meaningful contradictions and errors. And the contraditions and error that it may contain are, at best, inconsequential, or can be explained away by a well-educated Christian scholar.

I think there is more than ample evidence through the scholarship of both avowed atheists as well as through "former" Christian scholars, that the Bible contains hundreds if not thousands of glaring contraditions and errors. Not to mention how many books are forgeries. Can they be explained away? Of course they can - especially by a devout Christian!

My personal belief is the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the debate. Atheists may overreach as to the true number of errors, as do the Christian scholars in terms of declaring any errors inconsequential. Neither side holds all the cards. But, and it's a big but, if devout Christians even acccept some middle-ground in terms Biblical inerrancy, it leaves them "holding the bag" in terms of their arguments. It's seems to be an all-or-nothing game for them.

Waitasec are you haveing a proxy argument with me this time in absentia. Your reasons have nothing to do with why I have chosen to not respond to you.

Rev your statemnet about my tactics are generally correct. I have found very acceptable explanations that render any accusations of contradiction that lie outside of scribal error to be incorrect. I was amazed by this and did not expect a book that old to be that accurate. I honestly find suffecient evidence for my conclusion that the bible is suffeciently reliable for all Christian needs and that other religions have faults that render their claims of Divine origin impossible. I realise this sounds biased to many which is why I will back up what I say as long as the subject is sincerely approached. When evidence of hostility towards the concept arrises through, contentions maintained and evidence arbitrarily dismissed, or nit-picking without interest in explenation, or comments meant for emotional effect rather than inquisistion I loose interest. However I respect even sincere positions that I do not agree with as yours is even though I wish you would provide some specific examples of what you claim.

 

[waitasec]

And sometimes the fence is the best place to sit to get a view of both sides.

Addendum - By the way, are you calling my but big?

your but not your butt