Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[1robin]

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

I qualified the contention by pointing to the fact that I would explain my assertions based on your picking of a specific one.

 

[waitasec]

Waitasec are you haveing a proxy argument with me this time in absentia.

no. it takes two to argue.

it takes one to challenge another's erroneous claims.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Atheists may overreach as to the true number of errors, as do the Christian scholars in terms of declaring any errors inconsequential.

What strikes me as inconsequential is this fixation on the number of errors. Even more childish is a fixation on the number of textual errors - there is a marked difference between accuracy and fidelity.

 

[Reverend Richard]

your but not your butt

Oh! Sorry...

 

[waitasec]

What strikes me as inconsequential is this fixation on the number of errors. Even more childish is a fixation on the number of textual errors - there is a marked difference between accuracy and fidelity.

even more childish than that, what about the fixation on the textual accuracy that would somehow verify it is the word of god while ignoring other "textual accuracy" which are stipulated in other holy books...but of course those have to be :ignore:

 

[Katzpur]

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.

That's all very interesting, Rick, but I'm unclear as to why you see this as "putting limits on God." I agree far more with your new view of God than I did with your old one -- that God is love and hope, but then it's more in line with what my religion teaches. It's interesting, though, the change that I've seen in you over the time you've been posting. I've got to admit that it's very much a positive change. If it wouldn't be too far off topic, would you mind explaining how this change came about?

 

[Barrackubus]

No holy book is infalliable. As a former Christian converted to pagansim, I have found that the religion kf science is more infalliable. The bible is unrealisitic unfair and extremely biased towards the human conditions of unbiblical people...

 

[1robin]

No holy book is infalliable. As a former Christian converted to pagansim, I have found that the religion kf science is more infalliable. The bible is unrealisitic unfair and extremely biased towards the human conditions of unbiblical people...

How is something more infallable than some other infallable something? A dislike for something right or wrong does not determine it's existance.

 

[waitasec]

How is something more infallable than some other infallable something?

if i am not a good tennis player and i am also a human being
does that make me not a good person too, thats how.

A dislike for something right or wrong does not determine it's existance.

is that how you feel about skepticism?

 

[Reverend Richard]

That's all very interesting, Rick, but I'm unclear as to why you see this as "putting limits on God." I agree far more with your new view of God than I did with your old one -- that God is love and hope, but then it's more in line with what my religion teaches. It's interesting, though, the change that I've seen in you over the time you've been posting. I've got to admit that it's very much a positive change. If it wouldn't be too far off topic, would you mind explaining how this change came about?

@ Katzpur - Please don't confuse me (Reverend Richard) with Reverend Rick. I haven't posted here very long - only a few months.

I'm not sure what you see as a change.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

Evidence says it's baseless and irrational.

It's not how it looks, and it's not an opinion, though you wish it were.

 

[Vansdad]

Evidence says it's baseless and irrational.

It's not how it looks, and it's not an opinion, though you wish it were.

It all depends on what you call evidence. so many things are now taken as fact without proof but evidence alone.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It all depends on what you call evidence. so many things are now taken as fact without proof but evidence alone.

I call evidence evidence. We're not making up new definitions, here.

Well, wait, I am not.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Because the Bible (especially the Old Testament), paints God as vengeful and jealous.

It's been my contention for some time that the scriptures are man's first blog about his search for God. God inspired men to write, but he is not the author! Of course, they got it SO wrong in the OT, that God sent his son to straighten us out. He told us to forget trying to follow human traditions and just learn to love each other. Yet, there are many on here who want to turn our freedom into just another set of rules. I abide by just one rule: Love everyone just like God would love them.

Love IS all you need!

 

[Scuba Pete]

I call evidence evidence. We're not making up new definitions, here.

It would appear that you are treating your interpretations of evidence as actual evidence and even worse: as proof. It's a common mistake to take it one step further than you should, but the same evidence can be open to more than one interpretation depending on your preconceptions about what you see as truth.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It would appear that you are treating your interpretations of evidence as actual evidence and even worse: as proof. It's a common mistake to take it one step further than you should, but the same evidence can be open to more than one interpretation depending on your preconceptions about what you see as truth.

Oh, please

The problem here is that the definition of what constitutes actual factual evidence needs to be stretched to make it appear that anecdotes and wishful thinking are on par with verified fact. Vansdad does this on another forum as well. Irrational and contradictory attributes are just that; it's not my ********* opinion. Logic and rational thought follow certain rules; I didn't make them up, but I will at any opportunity gleefully agree with the formulaic structure of them when weak theistic dreams don't live up to them. Attempting to equate bad thought with good or irrational ideas with the rational is not affected by my opinion, nor are they my opinions. They simply do not equate. This is not a case of an unfair treatment of equitable alternative ideas, it is simply mockery of unsupportable wishful thinking.

It's a lost causes' argument: "oh , who gets to decide what rational is!', after presenting irrational ideas.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Oh, please

You're welcome!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

At least you're polite.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's a lost causes' argument: "oh , who gets to decide what rational is!', after presenting irrational ideas.

Not all, or even many, theists have committed intellectual suicide. However, people who suggest that science disproves God have done just that.

Belief in God and disbelief in God is never supported by unequivocal evidence. It's an emotional decision by each individual. Yes, I know that's hard to accept, but it's simply true. Once you have arrived at your belief, all facts you encounter will be interpreted to support your POV. It's human nature to claim such absolutism when you aren't even close.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Not all, or even many, theists have committed intellectual suicide. However, people who suggest that science disproves God have done just that.

Belief in God and disbelief in God is never supported by unequivocal evidence. It's an emotional decision by each individual. Yes, I know that's hard to accept, but it's simply true. Once you have arrived at your belief, all facts you encounter will be interpreted to support your POV. It's human nature to claim such absolutism when you aren't even close.

Not many, really? Methinks you should read more such forms.

Since proving a negative is not the issue, nor is it a rational demand, we must look that the evidence offered as proof of God, is not actual evidence.

That is an example of what kind of thinking, Im actually talking about.

If one's only offer of 'evidence' is the bland statement that supernatural beings will not provide any sort of evidence science is capable of examining and verifying, then the assertion remains baseless. A baseless assertion with no evidence may be rationally dismissed without evidence.