Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CX · 12-17-2001, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pantera:


You become a regular with your 31st post. I hope you'll stay around and give us many more.

Wow. You all have loose standards. When do I get my fancy club jacket and Secular Web Regular bumper sticker?

Liquidrage · 12-17-2001, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2xhelix:
1.God cannot err.
2.The Bible is the Word of God.
3.Thus the Bible is inerrant

1. If a thiestic deity exists, then this statement by default is true.

2. From KJV

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:16

also

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
1 Thessalonians 2:13

Also in many other passages, the Bible is shown to be the Word of God.

3. By combining 1 and 2, we can see that the Bible is inerrant as long as a deity does exist.

These comparisions bother me no matter how illogical they are. The fact that they are common is disturbing however.

I will never understand the logic behind

if a then b
if b then a

a and b are both true because of this
------------------------------------

It's the same arguement that goes,
"god said he created the earth. the earth is here. god must be true"

------------------------------------

Based upon these 3 items

1.God cannot err.
2.The Bible is the Word of God.
3.Thus the Bible is inerrant

1 and 2 both would need to be proven true outside of each other for 3 to be true as well.
1 does not make 2 true or vice versa.

If 1 was true, 2 could be false and 3 could still be true.
1 could be false, 2 and 3 could both be true because if god could err doesn't mean he always does.
And even 1 and 2 could be false and 3 could be true just by happenstance.

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]

Muad'Dib · 12-17-2001, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CowboyX:
Who is the troll? Me or Amen-Moses? If the latter sorry, I'm pretty new here and don't know who's a troll and who isn't. I'll make a mental note.

If I'm not mistaken, cloudyphiz is referring to the originator of this thread.

CX · 12-17-2001, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Muad'Dib:


If I'm not mistaken, cloudyphiz is referring to the originator of this thread.

In that case I disagree if this thread is any indication of 2xHelix's usual participation. What his argument is weak and easily refuted it is notheless an argument. My operational defintion of a troll is from the old usenet days where it referred to someone who was not interested in debate and simply posted short contentless missives aimed at inciting reactions rather than honest and open debate.

12-17-2001, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Quatermass:
Regardless of how you get there, the notion that the Bible is inerrant can easily be tested, especially if you think that it is fairly represented in its current form to the original autographs.

How familiar are you with the problems in the Bible that argue against inerrancy?

It's a risky position as a single error seems to demolish not just your view of the Bible, but by your original argument, the existence of God!

The problem here is to find the right judge to disprove the proper interpretation. If you find one he will have to be an interpeter and will equally have the mind of a mythmaker.

From here, the translation errors can be corrected because the mythmaker can write his own bible and therefore correct translation errors.

From this folows that the bible is all mythology in which the stories are set locally but not dependent on them. In fact, most often the locations are chosen to lead to confusion in effort to avoid literalism.

Quatermass · 12-17-2001, 10:02 PM

Amos is probably only allowed to eat with spoons...

Dolphin · 12-19-2001, 01:56 AM

Wow, there has been alot of posts since I posted, still I'll reply out of good manners.

Quote:

Originally posted by 2xhelix:
Dolphin

From Dictionary.com

de�i�ty (d-t, d-)
n. pl. de�i�ties
A god or goddess.
The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.

and

god (gd)
n.
God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

By definition alone, if god exsists, he is infaliable.

As Maud'dib said dictionaries do not always cover all definitons of a word, and certainly not one as hotly debated as God.

Quote:

Originally posted by 2xhelix:
The difference between other religions and Christianity, is that in Christianity, God speaks to the people. In contrast to the Qu'ran, Allah speaks only to Muhammad.

No, mostly God seems to be talking to indaviduals, in rare and infrequenet cases he is claimed to talk to the masses, but not often, and even in these cases it is only claimed by one person that God spoke to many, which is no better than one person claiming god spoke to him.

Quote:

Originally posted by 2xhelix:
So if it were revealed to you that a god does exist, would you accept it to be the Christian God?

No, you would still have to show that the bible was written by him.

Demiurge · 12-19-2001, 05:09 AM

About as valid as a talking ass.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-17-2001, 10:02 PM	#26
Quatermass Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 69	Amos is probably only allowed to eat with spoons...

12-19-2001, 05:09 AM	#28
Demiurge Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Butler Posts: 67	About as valid as a talking ass.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.