Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 171 of 2241 (738459)
10-10-2014 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
10-10-2014 4:12 PM


Re: 3 in one
Faith writes:
By the way, Islam holds that the concept of the Trinity is a denial of monotheism, which makes perfect sense to me and was my original point to Djufo.
But it isn't a denial of Monotheism, it's just one of the ways you misunderstand the Trinity.
Christianity has apologetics in favor of the Trinity, Islam has apologetics against the Trinity, and both base their arguments on holy texts based upon myths and unevidenced claims.
Of course the Islamic view makes sense to you, the Trinity is counterintuitive and difficult to grasp.
The Trinity isn't at all difficult to grasp. What's difficult to grasp is the tortured rationales, and even if there were an internally consistent explanation you still have the problem that the foundation is a book of myths and legends with no connection to reality. Why would I care any more about the rationale for the Christian Trinity than about the details of how Harry Potter flies his broom? You haven't taken the first step of showing a connection to anything real.
Why not admit that Unitarianism has no basis in anything at all...
I'm making no claims for Unitarianism, and it doesn't really fit in this discussion. I was raised Unitarian, and I feel most comfortable in a Unitarian church, but as an adult my beliefs don't really align with any established religion.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 10-10-2014 4:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 10-10-2014 9:16 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 198 of 2241 (738494)
10-11-2014 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
10-10-2014 9:16 PM


Re: 3 in one
Faith writes:
Of course there's nothing I can say to someone who calls it all a book of myths when I know it's not. Some things can't be proved.
Yes, some things have to be accepted on faith.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 10-10-2014 9:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 10-11-2014 9:29 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 10-11-2014 2:12 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 199 of 2241 (738496)
10-11-2014 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Percy
10-11-2014 7:29 AM


Re: 3 in one
Percy writes:
Yes, some things have to be accepted on faith.
Let me revise that.
Yes, some things can only be accepted on faith, but if they have no evidence there's no reason to accept them at all.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 10-11-2014 7:29 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Phat, posted 10-11-2014 12:04 PM Percy has replied
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 10-11-2014 2:13 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 245 of 2241 (738564)
10-12-2014 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Phat
10-11-2014 12:04 PM


Re: Evidence and Belief
Phat writes:
Perhaps the question is what constitutes evidence? Is an internal subjective "born again" experience qualified? How about a vision? a dream?
We gather evidence of the real world through our senses.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Phat, posted 10-11-2014 12:04 PM Phat has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 246 of 2241 (738565)
10-12-2014 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
10-11-2014 2:12 PM


Re: 3 in one
Faith in Messages 211 and 212 writes:
No way could I accept anything I regard as a myth on faith.
...
The internal evidence given by the many authors of the many testimonies that make up the Bible is staggeringly sufficient for supporting faith in what it says.
On many points the Bible is internally inconsistent and contradictory, and on many points it is externally uncorroborated or contradicted. People who are just as sure you're wrong as you are that you're right use the exact same Bible you do. Religions have apologetics to explain away their inconsistencies and contradictions and to render interpretations consistent with their particular theology. The mere existence of these other interpretations testifies that there is no one, right and true theology.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 10-11-2014 2:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 2:46 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 276 of 2241 (738619)
10-13-2014 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
10-12-2014 2:46 PM


Re: 3 in one
Faith writes:
The mere existence of these other interpretations testifies that there is no one, right and true theology
Very odd logic there.
No, it's the only logic that makes any sense. Since there's an absence of any actual evidence for a Trinity, God, Jesus or the Holy Ghost, sects are free to cast any interpretation that suits their theology upon Biblical passages, and that's what they do.
False religions, cults, the ponderings of single individuals with an axe to grind all interpreting the Bible for themselves, against the long history of the understanding of the best of the best being validated by hundreds of churches before it's made dogma, all that testifies that there is no one right and true theology?
On what basis do you determine which "religions, cults and ponderings" are false? Interpretations of Biblical passages, right? What determines which interpretation is correct? Unless this determination traces back to actual evidence instead of inconsistent and contradictory Biblical passages of unknown provenance then religious sects can argue inconclusively among themselves for centuries without resolving anything definitively. Which is precisely what world religious history tells us has happened and is still happening.
Had you been born in the time of Caesar you would be arguing as determinedly for Roman gods as you are today for your Trinitarian beliefs.
The devil pokes a few unstable people in the ribs...
You haven't exactly been the picture of stability here. You're a poor candidate to be calling other people unstable, plus there's no evidence for the devil, either.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 2:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 12:37 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 284 of 2241 (738647)
10-13-2014 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
10-13-2014 12:37 PM


Re: 3 in one
Faith writes:
Your bad logic was that the existence of many theologies doesn't mean there isn't a right and true theology.
That was all you chose to quote, but that wasn't all I said. I also said that there is no evidence, only inconsistent and contradictory Biblical passages of unknown provenance.
Now if even in the absence of any evidence everyone still expressed the same theology then one could argue that there must be some truth to that theology, otherwise everyone wouldn't believe the same thing. But the reality is that there are many different theologies, and this is because in the absence of evidence everyone is free to cast their own interpretations upon the text.
The unstable ones I had in mind, single individuals who invent cults and gather a following, include such as Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Charles Taze Russell, Ellen G. White, could add David Koresh and other contemporaries I suppose.
And how are you proving that Joseph Smith and Mohammed were the "unstable" ones and not Peter and Paul. Can I guess that it will involve quoting Bible passages out of context?
It seems to be more an article faith than evidenced fact that there is such ambiguity in the scriptures.
The many different Christian sects with their differing Biblical interpretations are evidence that there is plenty of ambiguity and contradiction in the Bible. The non-Trinitarians use the same Bible you do, and when you say they are heretics or tricked by the devil they can say, "Right back at you," and since there's no real evidence either way, who can say. And since both sides are actually just piling fiction upon fiction, beyond the disputants who really cares.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 12:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 2:38 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 291 of 2241 (738656)
10-13-2014 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
10-13-2014 2:38 PM


Re: 3 in one
Faith writes:
I've given enough reason to regard the mainstream doctrine as the truth over any of the sects and cults and heresies it seems to me,...
Since the Trinity derives from casting one's own theological interpretations upon inconsistent and contradictory Biblical passages of unknown provenance, you haven't provided any reasons at all beyond "The mainstream view is the correct view," which has a long history of failure and is no reason at all.
...but you like your version I've already answered,...
Well, yes, you did provide an answer when you said it wasn't possible to prove the Bible true, but then you began arguing as if you didn't really believe that but only said it to bring an end to that line of discussion.
...so there's nothing more to say is there?
Well, you haven't been saying anything for a while now. You've been in "I've already answered that" mode.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 2:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 293 of 2241 (738660)
10-13-2014 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Faith
10-13-2014 7:24 PM


Re: Review of the False Church of Rome
Faith writes:
Of course the world accepts this outrageous impostor "Church" as if it were the leader of Christendom as it so loves to be considered, and you even speak of it as if it had a right to consider itself a legitimate church.
So I guess this means you don't count Catholic support for the Trinity. This mainstream thinking you keep going on about just shrunk by a great deal. In fact, since Catholicism is the largest Christian church, your mainstream is smaller than they are. Are you sure you're mainstream?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 7:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 7:50 PM Percy has replied
 Message 298 by Phat, posted 10-14-2014 6:27 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 296 of 2241 (738663)
10-13-2014 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
10-13-2014 7:50 PM


Re: Review of the False Church of Rome
Faith writes:
The mistake is to think the RCC as it grew to be in the Middle Ages and still is, has anything to do with Christianity. They have preserved some truth after all...
Right. Catholicism has preserved some Christian truths like the Trinity, but it doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. Sure.
Look, we get it, you don't like Catholicism, but there's no need to go off into lengthy irrational diatribes. You could instead discuss something closer to the topic, like how the Bible is the inerrant word of God and therefore entirely appropriate to serve as the foundational truth behind the Trinity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 7:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 9:04 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 300 of 2241 (738672)
10-14-2014 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Faith
10-13-2014 9:04 PM


Re: Review of the False Church of Rome
Faith writes:
And with your absolutely stupid idiotic way of assessing these things there is no hope whatever of saying anything that would show you the inerrancy of scripture.
I grant that you have a difficult task demonstrating that the Bible with all its internal and external errors and contradictions is inerrant.
Its marvelous consistency is denied, its cohesiveness over centuries is denied, abe: its perfect record of fulfilled prophecy is denied, its intricately interwoven themes from author to author is denied.
We know you believe these things about the Bible, but you've never been able to muster any support for them. All your arguments have been refuted. Perhaps there are answers to the refutations, but you don't bother to provide them, you just say, "I've already proved that." Proving things only to your own satisfaction is no proof at all.
The Trinity proofs I gave add up to the official Trinity concept but jar makes the idiotic complaint that they are "taken out of context" although within all their separate contexts they still say what they say about the nature of God that adds up to the Trinity.
So you say, but you don't respond to Jar's actual arguments. Or anyone's, actually.
The points you're trying to make about Catholicism and the Trinity and other things are underlain by a work of fiction, and speaking just for myself there is no interest in arguments based upon fiction. You can't base arguments upon myths and legends. But NoNukes seems willing to accept the authority of the Bible for the sake of discussion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 9:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2014 9:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 306 by NoNukes, posted 10-14-2014 11:45 AM Percy has replied
 Message 311 by Faith, posted 10-14-2014 1:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 301 of 2241 (738674)
10-14-2014 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Phat
10-14-2014 6:27 AM


Re: Are you sure you're mainstream?
Phat writes:
Percy,talking to Faith writes:
Are you sure you're mainstream?
This brings up an interesting question. As a Christian, I will share what I consider to be important doctrines.
I was just poking fun at Faith's contradictory statement that the largest Christian church is out of the mainstream. Her tail is wagging her dog.
Phat writes:
We disagree on whether evidence should be the main measure of belief and faith.
Speaking just for myself, I don't think faith should be based upon evidence. I think ideas about the real world should be based upon evidence, and ideas about the spiritual world should be based upon faith.
And finally...it it not important whether or not the Bible is word for word literal.
But it *is* important whether the Bible is literally and inerrantly true. If it truly has these qualities then its importance and significance is transcendent. It would mean that all other religions *and* science are wrong. But all the evidence from both within and without the Bible says that it is neither literally inerrant nor the word of God, whose existence in some recognizably Christian form hasn't been established anyway.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Phat, posted 10-14-2014 6:27 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Faith, posted 10-14-2014 1:58 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 307 of 2241 (738691)
10-14-2014 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by NoNukes
10-14-2014 11:45 AM


Re: Review of the False Church of Rome
Not sure what you thought I was saying. My occasional comments about topic are more just marveling at Faith's attitude that the rules don't apply to her. Judging us hopeless regarding the topic, she feels free to introduce whatever other topics she likes.
I'm not moderating the thread. Adminemooseus stepped in briefly over the weekend to issue a caution about content-free posts, which was needed, but there's no on-topic discussion being interfered with, so the off-topic discussion doesn't seem to be causing any problems.
My main intent was just to let Faith know that even though I'm not interested in discussing Bible-based arguments that you did seem interested.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by NoNukes, posted 10-14-2014 11:45 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by NoNukes, posted 10-14-2014 2:22 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 316 of 2241 (738705)
10-14-2014 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Faith
10-14-2014 1:32 PM


Re: Review of the False Church of Rome
Faith writes:
Unbelievable that you think jar said anything that needs to be answered.
Typical that you don't. Jar raised a serious point and you appear to have no answer. You seem to have only a single arrow in your quiver for any topic these days, and after you've used it it's all "I've already answered that," "That doesn't deserve an answer," "I'm redefining words to suit my own purposes," "That's idiotic," and "There's no use talking to you" (though you keep talking anyway, and I'm paraphrasing, of course).
And of course to call the Bible fiction puts you so far out of reality there's no point in talking to you at all, I don't know why I try.
And yet it's the very topic of this thread, and something else you seem to have no answer for.
Even most atheists don't deny that there is some historical truth in the Bible.
A Tale of Two Cities is fiction, too, even though it's about historical places and events like London and Paris and the French Reign of Terror. Calling A Tale of Two Cities or the Bible fiction is not to accuse them of containing nothing accurate or factual. This shouldn't have to be explained.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Faith, posted 10-14-2014 1:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 319 of 2241 (738708)
10-14-2014 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Faith
10-14-2014 1:36 PM


Re: Review of the False Church of Rome
Faith writes:
Mainstream SHOULD mean most orthodox or most true to the teachings of the Bible,...
Ah, thank you for treating us to yet another definition from the Faith Dictionary of the English Language.
Whether you use the word "orthodox" or "mainstream" (I'm using the standard definitions, now, not the special ones that you make up), Catholicism qualifies. By no logic or rationale can Catholicism be classified as unorthodox or out of the Christian mainstream.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 10-14-2014 1:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024