I'm not particularly objecting to closing the Bible Inerrancy thread (see Message 52), but I would like to say that the demand for scriptural support is not relevant to the topic. The topic is based on a statement on inerrancy that does not rest on that sort of evidentiary scriptural support. It's intended to reflect or declare or explain what the evangelical position is without the expectation of proving anything about it, as a foundational document. While they invite considered corrections from other Christians to anything it declares, they do not invite debate on the established tenets by unbelievers.
The reason I opened the thread was that on another thread, where it was off topic, claims had been made that Bible inerrancy is false and merely an invention to support creation science. Since it is a position that is simply declared as the foundational view of the Evangelical branch of the Church I don't present it to be debated but simply to show that Bible inerrancy IS a central doctrine of Christianity, it wasn't invented to support creation science as claimed.
So if the thread HAS to be about debate go ahead and shut it down.
I'll reopen it after a few hours but I want to encourage you to behave kinder towards others (such as GDR) and stop trying to make the thread all about what you believe as some sort of established fact---when it is not. You know the rules here...this isn't simply your private blog. Forum Guidelines
Granted your opponents are often not any nicer to you....I saw the topic as getting out of hand. Let it cool down a few hours.
Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
I'm sorry Phat, I don't even know what you are talking about. I'd just finished a long answer to Percy in which I answered a whole bunch of his misreadings and as far as I know am not guilty of any kind of personal attack on him or any violation of the3 Forum Guidelines. You accuse me of that but you do not say what I've violated in the Rules.
Apparently you really hate it that I know I represent orthodox traditional Christianity and that you certainly don't and GDR doesn't. Jaywill and Iano, who is no longer here, do basically share my views but you don't and neither does GDR and I say so. And you apparently don't like that. But it's a substantive point, it's not just a point of "kindness," it's a matter of truth. Your disagreeing with it is not a justification for shutting me up, and all you are doing is disagreeing with me. Pretty obnoxiously and petulantly in my opinion.
How did anything"get out of hand?" Clearly in spite of what you are now saying about others' attitudes toward me you see me as a special offender in all this and you've been on this track for a while now. I don't see this your way and I do not appreciate your opinion about what I am doing. It is none of your business unless you want to identify some specific violation of the EvC rules and call me on them. Name the rule and the violation specifically. Thinking I'm right and you're wrong as far as I know is not a violation of the rules. Except maybe in your head.
Otherwise I am arguing the issues as I understand the issues and it has nothing to do with kindness or unkindness. In fact I think what you consider to be kindness is often just capitulating on major issues of truth that no Christian should ever capitulate on. You very proudly say you "aren't afraid" to question Christian beliefs. Well in my opinion that is nothing to be proud of and THAT really rubs ME the wrong way.
So I will not subject myself to your personal opinion on this. Behave as an Admin and mind your own business on personal issues. Or hey, suspend me.
Whatever. It does get frustrating having to deal with someone who knows absolutely nothing and thinks his misreadings are the standard even though it is clear from the context that he must be contradicting the men who wrote the document who really ought to be credited with knowing what they are saying. Naa, Percy knows better. On one reading he knows better than all of them
...claims had been made that Bible inerrancy is false and merely an invention to support creation science.
I hope no one actually made such a claim. Creation science wasn't invented until around the 1960's, about a half century after Biblical inerrancy.
I'm not sure I follow how you or Phat are thinking about the topic of the thread. I took the thread title at its word, that the originator (you) would be defending the proposition that Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections, and I thought the thread was going along those lines to a good enough extent.
I'll reopen it after a few hours but I want to encourage you to behave kinder towards others (such as GDR) and stop trying to make the thread all about what you believe as some sort of established fact---when it is not. You know the rules here...this isn't simply your private blog. Forum Guidelines Granted your opponents are often not any nicer to you....I saw the topic as getting out of hand. Let it cool down a few hours.
Hi Phat. Personally I don't think that Faith was any harder on me than I was on her. This topic is very important to both of us, and we obviously have very different views on the subject. Thank you so much for doing the pretty thankless job of being an admin.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
I took the thread title at its word, that the originator (you) would be defending the proposition that Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections, and I thought the thread was going along those lines to a good enough extent.
Mostly because they are topics I like to talk about. I understand that sometimes their... professionalism... can be questionable. But, that doesn't stop me from wanting to talk about the topics they bring up. Are they really so bad as to stop public discussion with them, though?
Besides, it beats talking to Faith all the time...
Moar topics! Moar posts!! Moar!!!
Edited by Stile, : It's "their," not "they're." Damnit, get it right.
Porkncheese is just regurgitating (nasty) religious propaganda.
Well, along with gross mis-characterizations of atheists. Blaming everything Porky thinks is wrong with the world on atheists is disturbing. He doesn't want a discussion or to gain an accurate view, but rather, just a chance to spew nasty fucking bullshit on this forum. I am grateful that his type praying at our children is no longer allowed in our public schools.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo