Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections

Sarah Bellum writes: Put it another way: what if the Bible had errors in it? The readers of the Bible would then have to use their own judgment about what to believe and how to act.

You answered your own question. Why think when you can have a commentator do it for you?

Sarah bellum writes: But that is what they do already, isn't it?

If you put a baby and a barbecue in front of some "inerrantists", they'd need a YouTube video to tell them what to do with them.

Bible is alright, it just tells that the Heaven-and-Earth system is the visually programmed one, used by the Creator. To us, the Choice is given, to play the godly or godless game. Of course, if you are a program not believing in the Programmer, then you see all the software evolving from the hard disk primordial magnetization.

Bible is alright, it just tells that the Heaven-and-Earth system is the visually programmed one, used by the Creator. To us, the Choice is given, to play the godly or godless game. Of course, if you are a program not believing in the Programmer, then you see all the software evolving from the hard disk primordial magnetization.

AlexCaledin writes: ... if you are a program not believing in the Programmer....

I think you'll find that most programs work just fine without believing in the programmer.

In my view, deciding how to live one's life isn't really "that simple". It requires learning and thinking conscientiously. "Inerrancy" (again, this is just my view), leads one down the proverbial primrose path, causing one to ignore that need for reasoning.

At it worst, we find that good people usually do good things, while bad people can do bad things, but to persuade good people to do bad things requires that lack of reason, whether from religion or some totalitarian ideology.

Saray Bellum writes: don't worry, be happy! Stile writes: It really is so simple. In my view, deciding how to live one's life isn't really "that simple".

Fair enough, and I agree.

I was attempting to say that the concept/description is simple: "Don't worry, be happy!" 4 words. Pretty simple.
I agree, though, that the implementation... the "how" to achieve such a thing is not so simple. In fact, for some, it is impossible.

"Inerrancy" (again, this is just my view), leads one down the proverbial primrose path, causing one to ignore that need for reasoning.

Agreed.

At it worst, we find that good people usually do good things, while bad people can do bad things...

To me, this is as-defined.
That is, when we do good things... we are good people. Therefore, of course "good people" do good things... it's according to the definition

...but to persuade good people to do bad things requires that lack of reason, whether from religion or some totalitarian ideology.

Yeah.
Lack of reason. Possibly due to ignorace or willful dismissal.
Or possibly only due to lack of motivation.

I find morality fascinating.
So I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, reading about it, and discussing it (mostly here at EvC, even.)

But I've also identified that most people are not so fascinated with morality.
In general, most seem to only worry about how they're seen by others... so they understand that others call some people "good people" or "bad people" and their motivation only pushes them far enough to get themselves labelled as a "good person."

They don't generally care why or the root-cause to such labels - just as long as they are not viewed in a negative/awkward manner by their every-day peers.

But... that's only my subjective, anecdotal view. I have no data to support it. Your mileage may vary.

Faith writes: Certainly we are to use our reasoning ability but the scriptures are unique in being authored by God so using our reasoning ability to reject what he says is a misuse of our reasoning ability.

That is one of the many problems with your interpretation of the Scriptures. You take a 21st century reading of 2-3000 year old Scriptures, translated from between 2 or more other languages and read them like you would a newspaper, or even more strangely like a science text . You simply ignore the obvious fact that all of the scriptures were written within the context of an entirely different time, place, culture and situation and they have to be understood in that context.
You want to boil everything down into cryptic little sentences. Christ's message of love is simple enough but theology, not so much. You then dumb down the theology and in doing so you wind up twisting Jesus' message of love so that it becomes almost unrecognizable. I suggest as evidence I can read back over numerous posts that you have put together here, and I have to say I'm just not feeling the love.

Faith writes: I don't think you answered my question about substitutionary atonement: Did Jesus' death on the cross pay for the sins of those who believe in Him so that we no longer have to suffer for them ourselves beyond this life, or not? A simple yes or no is all I ask. All the rest may be true or not, all I want is a yes or no to my question. Thanks.

Again a simple yes or no does not answer the question. You have to understand the idea of Jesus dying for our sins within the context of a Jewish 1st century world. The Jews kept praying for the return of Yahweh. They believed that one of the precursors of this was that it would mean that Yahweh had finally forgiven them of their sins.

The Jews had believed that when Yahweh returned they would be led in defeat of the enemy, (in this case the Romans), and at the least they would cease to be an occupied nation and would control their own destiny. Beyond that they hoped to be the powerful nation in their world, and that they would have control over other nations. However, before that could happen they would have to be forgiven their sins.

Jesus comes along as messiah and says essentially that it isn’t the Romans who are the enemy but that it is the evil that is behind them. He says that the weapon against evil is love and spoke against a military revolution. He tells them that a revolution will bring about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. It didn’t take supernatural knowledge to predict that. The Romans would do what they always did.

In addition Jesus taught that it wasn’t just about a small plot of land in the Middle East but that what He was doing was for the world.
After the resurrection happened the theologians, like Paul, started to sort out what Jesus, life, death and resurrection all meant. They finally understood that Jesus had embodied Yahweh’s return, even though it hadn’t looked like they had expected. If Yahweh had returned then it followed from Jewish doctrine that their sins had been forgiven. Also they went further in saying that as it was for the world, which meant that the sins of the world had been forgiven, including Jesus’ followers.

You can draw a yes or a no out of that as you please.

Faith writes: Please also answer whether you believe the man Jesus was born a human being of a virgin mother through the power of God.

I believe that one way or another that Jesus, born a human being, perfectly embodied the “Word” or the nature of God. The “Word became flesh” to quote John. It may have been an immaculate conception but I’m more interested in the result than the means. I accept the idea of the birth to a virgin but I also realize that the accounts of that are not central to the Gospels, not mentioned in the Epistles and do have a legendary feel about them.

Faith writes: You appear to be saying "no" to the question of the Trinity but let me be more specific: Is Jesus the Son of the same stuff or "substance" as the Father? What a son would be if begotten by a father? I think what you said about the Holy Spirit is clear enough that you don't even believe he is a person, is that true?

I really have no idea how to answer. The substantive part of anyone is their mind. Yes, I believe that Jesus was of one mind with the Father. The Bible is clear that there is a separation between Jesus and the Father. Jesus prayed to the Father and never claimed equality with the God He worshiped and followed. I am a Trinitarian as the “Ancient of Days’ in Daniel enthroned the “Son of Man” over His Kingdom of All Nations. The Temple had always been for the Jews the place where on could go to be in God’s place on Earth and be forgiven their sins but Jesus became a Temple replacement and went around forgiving sins. The Holy Spirit is that part of the Trinity that connects us with the Father and the Son.
What do your even mean as the Holy Spirit as a person?

Faith writes: You SEEM TO be saying you agree that Jesus in his resurrected body did walk through walls. Would you please say yes or no to this. Thank you.

The resurrected Jesus returned in bodily form that differed from His previous bodily existence. He appears to have been able to transition between God's heavenly dimension and our Earthly one. I think the Bible actually doesn't have Him going through walls but bypassing them all together.

Faith writes: Seems to be a "no" to the disciples seeing Jesus bodily rise into a cloud since you say you have no idea what they saw.

Going into a cloud was simply Jewish language for going into the presence of God which relates back to numerous accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Faith writes: So I'll put you down for a "no" about the traditional view of Jesus' returning bodily to this earth to judge it all and bring it to an end.

I'm kinda of agnostic on that whole thing. I'm inclined to believe that Jesus' return happens to each of us when we shuffle off from this world. That seems to make sense to me as if we are moving to a recreated timeless world that doesn't experience time or change ,as we do now, then I can't see how we can go into that world at a point of time. Frankly, that whole issue is well above my pay grade. The point is to simply live out our lives by fulfilling our vocation which is to reflect God's love into creation.

Faith writes: Actually I find the scriptures to be very ambiguous, requiring a lot of knowledge to understand them.

Amen to that. We sing a piece in church some times which includes the line, "so complex so simple, so clear so mysterious". The Christian call to love our neighbour is so clear and so simple, yet understanding the theology behind it is so complex and mysterious. We do best when we focus on the clear and simple part. My trouble is that I find the complex and mysterious part so interesting.