DoubtingDave

Hello guys,

I have formulated an argument against the Christian God called The Argument from Biblical Defects. I was inspired from Dr. Theodore M. Drange who has a similar formulation of the argument. I reworked it and revised some of the premises and have submitted it on my blog here

Please give me feedback. I am am debating the argument now to see how sound the argument is.

Juma

The argument, as all arguments against a nonspecific standpoint, is worthless and easily refuted: god moves in mysterious ways.

Religion is about belief, not about reasoning.

DoubtingDave

Although I agree that religion is belief and not reason, I think that the notion that God moves in mysterious ways is a very week argument against the argument from Biblical defects.

Juststeve

Your argument is a persuasive one against Biblical Inerrancy but is not an effective argument against the existence of the Christian God. The majority of the worlds Christians do not regard the Bible as inerrant, so not much of an argument.

Steve

Iskander

I am not a religious person, but I will play the part for your benefit.
In your blog at the beginning I found this:

The Bible is not the most confusing book ever written.

Have a look at chapters : Ten doubts about Pure Land, pages 19 and also 52, in the book Pure Land Buddhism, Dialogue with the Ancient Masters, on

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/pureland.pdf

This version allows copying the text

http://www.purelandbuddhism.com/10Doubts.pdf

"Because they do not understand this principle, they provoke arguments, slandering and deprecating those who seek rebirth in the Western Pure Land. What a great mistake!
They are guilty of vilifying the Dharma and belong to the ranks of deluded externalists (non-Buddhists)."

Closing words in the answer to the second question

DoubtingDave

Right, this argument is most effective against ultra-fundamentalist Christians.

Toto

Drange's argument

I think as a matter of pure logic, there are problems with the first two of your points:

Sola scriptura is a doctrine invented very late in the history of Christianity, by Martin Luther, and sola scriptura by itself does not even imply inerrancy or fundamentalism, which are even more modern heresies ideas. Contrary to your source, there are no clear verses in the Bible that claim that the Bible is inerrant, only that all Scripture is useful for instruction. You have only disproven one particular limited version of the Christian god

sotto voce

I wonder who they are, exactly? Every denomination states explicitly that the Bible is inerrant. Many who claim to be Christians have nothing to do with denominations (because they believe that denominations do not behave as though the Bible is inerrant), but agree that the Bible is inerrant. I can't think of any significant organisation or informal movement that makes claim to be Christian but does not also claim biblical inerrancy. Even cults like RCism, JWism and Mormonism do not dare to say that the Bible contains error. Though the Eastern Orthodox get a bit close, at times— but then they live in their own little fantasy world. All of the rest are trying, usually desperately, to look Christian to real Christians, and the fastest way to disqualify oneself in their eyes is to call the Bible into question.

So to say that the Bible is not inerrant is to contradict just about everyone who makes a Christian claim. That includes a great many very serious, highly qualified scholars. Few would have the nerve to call them 'ultra-fundamentalist' to their faces, imv. It might make more sense to try to discover how they deal with alleged defects.

TedM

Really? A distinction needs to be made between 'inerrant' and 'literal'. Many churches do not support a literal interpretation of much of the bible (ie they would say that a literal reading of Genesis 1 would be in error), and are supportive of 'questioning'--allowing for multiple interpretations of different passages.

Toto

Christians can only claim that the Bible is "inerrant" by stretching the meaning of that term so it is virtually meaningless.