What is a 'true Christian'?

Premise 1. The bible never claims inerrancy.
(How would that be possible anyway, since each book was individually written before the biblical cannon? Your premise basically states that Ayrton Senna, at the age of 10, didn't claim to be an F1 driver) But as we know, the cannon was later put together. It is a moot point. A spiritual understanding of God's word is received by those who receive spiritual revelation. You don't accept such scriptures, therefore you are the one to be against the bible, because you believe they hold no truth.Premise 2. "The doctrine holding otherwise is therefore a human doctrine" ( This wouldn't follow anyway, but you would still have to prove your case, you are saying that it can't be inerrant based on human reasons you have, and because of omission. These are feeble premises, and a "human doctrine" would be that of human reason. A human doctrine would be held by those that don't accept that Christ rose from the dead, but you are saying that because we accept these things as read, we are "anti-biblical". My response to that is; LoL! That doesn't follow anyway. You are simply stating a cynical motive, not proving one. And you are also stating things opposite to the truth. You full well know that people that don't believe in the bible, are anti-biblical, in that they reject it, but those that believe it, are biblical Christians. You are stating that black is white and white is black.This conclusion also assumes the correctness of a premise which you didn't state, your premise would have been; The bible couldn't have claimed inerrancy, as to contain such a statement at the stage when the scriptures were individual, wouldn't be expected, and to jump to the conclusion that we have a "human" motive of putting words in God's mouth, is just silly. Only people that squeeze millions of evolutionary years into the bible, have human motives. Notice they didn't try and squeeze steady-state into the bible, but it wouldn't surprise me if, actually, some people did try!You are basically saying that a biblical position is unbiblical, and that people that take a biblical position, are anti-biblical, and want to put words into the bible that aren't there, because they accept the plain reading of the bible. An argument that holds no water, and doesn't even make sense.Those that accept the bible, know that there is a spiritual element which the natural mind can't understand, to it. This is why the bible says that the natural man can't understand spiritual things.The scripture itself disqualifies your conclusions because it tells us that the natural man can't "get there" so to speak, by natural intellect. The scriptures are spiritual matters, they themselves claim to be, and it tells us that those who believe, "have the mind of Christ".Sorry Paul, but your argument is BACKWARDS.The only motive we have, is to accept God's word, understand it on a spiritual level, as it says we have been given the ability to do.Those that live to squash things in there, like gay-sex and evolution, and animal sex, they want to indulge, are motivated by human motives and governed by human reason.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I think you play with the term, "literally", what we usually mean is a plain contextual reading. If it is clearly historical narrative, then we take it as historical. So when it says, He "opens the treasuries of heaven" or the "pillars of the earth", we don't believe those things literally exist. This is just a strawman-game evolutionists play with creationists. They full well know what we mean really, we just mean that we accept the bible, and the obvious conclusions that come from it. All people know those basic, general meanings. When He says a 300 cubit ark, there is no reason to say that it really means a metaphorical cubit and that the ark was actually 30cm in length. You seek to insult our intelligence but we are not stupid just because you do this.This basically means that we don't do a hatchet job on the bible, to fit in human philosophies, or natural philosophies, or what the bible calls, "empty philosophies". So basically we are just consistent. So whether it is steady state theory or Big Bang theory or Panspermia, or abiogenesis, or whatever popular philosophical nonsense with no ultimate meaning, comes along, we don't fall for it.Everyone knows that a plain acceptance of a literal bible, was always the correct most honest way to proceed, after all, before Darwin, most people wouldn't have tried to squeeze millions of years between the "Yoms" of Genesis. But now they do.It doesn't take Einstein to figure as to why they NOW want to do that, because they are basically AFRAID that science has disproven God's word. What they need to do is be courageous, and study, to learn that a passing philosophy will pass, but "my words shall never pass."Who knows what the philosophy of tomorrow is, perhaps the conjunction of planets via diabolical transferation of abiogenetic gene flows from the centre of space. Yeah, whatever, but as for me, I will be going with the immutable; "I the Lord, do not change."(love your avatar, haha, cool, I love that guy.)Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.