The OP of a topic presents the argument and sets the tone for the debate, not the title.
GDR made a very specific argument about inconsistencies in the Bible. Just because the thread is on the science side doesn't mean it has to be devoid of religious reasoning. It just means that evidence needs to be provided to support the reasoning. Opponents can't just say, because I believe it or because I don't believe it.
The Accuracy and Inerrancy thread allows a more critical look at the Bible and who wrote it.
GDR makes the argument that the Bible is written by men.
His thread is aimed at literalists/fundamentalists. Keep that in mind. You didn't present and support a position concerning what he presented. You just did your standard rant and ridiculous questions.
So far all you're doing is attacking GDR. Argue the position, not the person.
If you don't feel his position supports the idea that the Bible is written by men, then provide your own argument and support.
If you don't feel the scripture he shared is inconsistent, then make your position known with support. If you feel they are inconsistent but for a different reason, then make your position known with support.
Pay attention to his argument.
When it comes to Bible discussions, your "arguments" tend to be devoid of support and evidence.
quote:You just really don't like when atheists call the bible or christians on bullshit, do you?
Not when it doesn't have anything to do with the argument or position presented and it's pretty much just additional bullshit. It pulls the thread off track. On the science side, you don't just get to call bullshit either. You have to provide support and evidence.
This thread will be for foreveryoung and others who share his view on the superiority of the 'protestant canon' (or any canon, for that matter) to defend their position and present evidence in its favor. I'd like to see the discussion follow along these lines:
First, those arguing for superiority of one of the canons will have to define that canon. This will mean listing all of the books that make up the canon as well as the versions of those books where significant variations exist.
Second, these folk will have to define and defend the criteria behind labeling one canon as superior or better than another. What is it about a canon that would make it superior? For example, foreveryoung seems to think that supernatural inspiration is a criterion for a superior canon.
Finally, they will have to show that these criteria are all met in the canon they hold as superior.
The discussion concerns various bible canons. Is the protestant canon superior to the catholic canon or other biblical canons and why?
Whether the NT is more reliable than any other ancient document is off topic. Other ancient documents are not the topic. I assumed your "it" was still referring to the NT since there was nothing else mentioned for it to refer to.
If the point is that one canon's NT is more reliable than the other, then that is on topic and evidence needs to be provided.
If the historicity of one canon is superior to another, then that is on topic and evidence needs to be provided.
The historicity issue started in Message 10 wasn't dealing with differences between canons. I don't see that your input was any different.
The issue is whether one Bible canon is superior to another.
1. I asked for clarification. 2. Didn't declare him off topic. 3. In Message 141, William Penn was used as evidence that America was based upon the first democracy, which the writer felt was a Christian nation. A round about association, but not addressed by Sigmund.
Whether America began a Christian nation is debatable, but what is not questionable is that it was based upon the first democracy in America, the Province of Pennsylvania founded in 1682 by William Penn, that was most definitely a Christian nation. Much of America's government was based on Penn's, which originated concepts like a 2-house elected assembly, a bill of rights with freedom of religion/speech/property, term limits, women's rights, and fair trial by jury. Message 141
4. Sigmund's post corrected the concepts. He didn't really say how correcting those concepts made any point concerning whether America is a Christian Nation or not or unhinged Jzyehoshua's position.
Just because the OP mentions founders doesn't mean any old discussion concerning the founders is on topic. It also mentions Texas, but that doesn't include just any old thing about Texas.
So far you haven't added any substance to that debate. I'm sure Sigmund is quite capable of airing his own concerns if he is uncomfortable or confused with my request.
We've had threads dealing with the problem with literal reading of the Bible. This thread is from a literalist's position asking how can those who worship God as a Christian can do so given that they don't believe that the Bible stories are all historically true.
You didn't address the questions presented in the OP. You just asked questions that really change the focus of the thread.
He's asking non-literalist Christians how they can trust any part of the book if part is fiction? He's asking how can non-literalist Christians worship a being that uses lies (fiction) to communicate. He's asking how non-literalist Christians determine what is true since some is consider fiction?
This is the religious side and it doesn't matter if he believes that God wrote the Bible or not. It isn't the point of the topic.
quote:Which would make all my points on-topic. Indeed, rejecting the idea that God literally wrote the Bible is essential.
There's a difference between saying "non-literalists don't believe that God wrote the Bible" and "Who said that God wrote the Bible?" One is stating a belief and the other is asking for proof. It isn't in the accuracy and inerrancy thread. It doesn't matter if the Bible supports his statement or not (unless he actually claims that it does, which he hasn't yet in this thread) it is his belief.
IMO, by lies he means fiction, not inacurracies. From the OP.
... pure fiction but that are conveyed in such a way to appear as legitimate...
The sentence that Jesus used fiction to make a point was on topic. You got one sentence, but the question that followed was not. The thread isn't about literalism. You turned it back on literalism. This thread is about non-literal interpretation.
So Exodus lacks basic historical details, what does that have to do with those who don't believe it is an actual event, but still worship God? This thread isn't about convincing the author that there is fiction in the Bible. He's asking how can a Christian who believes there is fiction in the Bible still worship God?
If early Christians did not take the Gospels as inerrant, why should you?
The thread isn't about taking the Bible as inerrant. It is about the non-literal understanding.
Your last paragraph just turned the OP around and made it about literalism.
You changed the focus of the thread.
Each thread is a new beginning. Don't bring baggage from other threads or previous knowledge of the author. Address what is said, not what you know or think the author believes.
Unfortunately the owner of this board has not come up with a uniform criteria for suspension length. Moderators are on their own. Maybe you can come up with a uniform criteria for suspension length and present it to Admin. Speed the process up a bit.
Just for the record, I didn't suspend you or recommend that you be suspended and I did not argue that you deserved worse. I argued that since Adminnemooseus suspended you, he should be the one to shorten the sentence if he chose to. He's the one you should have PM'd or emailed to ask for leniency.
Old threads resurface now and again. They aren't necessarily dead. Old threads are still a record of what has been discussed. You changed an opening post to something unrelated to the original. That means the responses to that post now make no sense.
It isn't wise to joke with moderation requests. We can't really take the stance that as long as you're joking, it's OK to break the rules.