Jack the Bodiless

Why should I blindly accept the authority of the Church just because the Bible says I must? I think you're forgetting that you're talking to unbelievers here.
Not strange at all. The reason Christianity appeals to so many people is that all Christians can find verses which support their own preferences and prejudices, even if these directly contradict the preferences and prejudices of others who also call themselves Christians. Hence the "no true Christian..." arguments that keep breaking out among them.
A Catholic inerrantist?

You're aware that the Catholic church accepts evolution and rejects a literal interpretation of Genesis, right?
Now you're redefining "inerrancy". Either the Bible is free of errors or it is not. The official position of the Catholic Church is that it is not.
...that he wasn't an inerrantist and knew that the Bible contained scientific errors. Also, that he believed that attempts to obfuscate this by insisting on the accuracy of scripture were futile and foolish.

markfiend

SOTC: We clearly see from Scripture, the right of interpretation was given to the Church. I might add this does not forbid one from reading the Bible, or even engaging in private interpretation, but should one contradict Church teaching they are subject to their own fallibility, and have thus exalted themselves above the cheif interpreter, the Church. My question, if the Bible plainly states the right of interpretation was given to the Church, and the Church, having done an exegesis of every single verse in the Bible, yet finds no contradiction, how is your assertion there is anymore credible than the Church?

m: This is just a circular argument--

The Bible (as interpreted by The Church) cannot be wrong, because The Church says that The Bible (as interpreted by The Church) is inerrant.
The Church cannot be wrong because The Bible (as interpreted by The Church) says that The Church is inerrant.

SignOfTheCross

I never said anything about the Church being inerrant.

Peace,
SOTC

Jobar

SOTC, you first claim that the Bible contains no errors, then you say that "I am an evolutionist (I suppose), believe the earth is older than 6000 years, believe dinosaurs once roamed the earth and the big bang theory is the best scientific theory we have thus far that explains the origin of the universe. " Maybe you claim that the Genesis tale is just poetry; well, then *we* claim that of the whole book. (Much of it quite execrable poetry, IMO.)

Have you even read the Bible, SOTC? I know that Catholics used to be discouraged from doing that; are they still? If you have not, then you are not a Biblical scholar yourself, and are in no postion to claim errancy or inerrancy.

Whether you have read the Bible or not, it becomes plain to all of us who *have* done so, that you know not whereof you speak. I won't say you are lying to us; your thoughts and ideas on the subject of God are so jumbled that I doubt *you* know what you really believe. You don't even seem to be speaking the same language we are, at times.

Another thing- you say
My question, if the Bible plainly states the right of interpretation was given to the Church, and the Church, having done an exegesis of every single verse in the Bible, yet finds no contradiction, how is your assertion there is anymore credible than the Church?

1. Lots and lots of people who call themselves Christian deny that "the right of interpretation" is given to your church. And, surprise, surprise, we atheists do too.

2. Re the Catholic Church's credibility- it has precious little. Down through the centuries, it has been an evil wearing a mask of good.

Leviathan- your profile says you are a 'Christian relativist/nihilist'. Quite a unique combination, that. Tell me, if nothing exists, just who is doing all the talking here?

Jack, I think your post on page 2, concerning the sins of the fathers, deserves :notworthy :notworthy ! Were it not for that, and some of the other excellent responses which SOTC and Leviathan have received, this thread would have been booted to ~~E~~ on sight.

The_Unknown_Banana

hehe, no I meant most christians that I know endorse this view. Not most christians in general

Well, this part has already been questioned here, but it also does sound an awful lot like just blindly believing authority. Basically it says you cannot think for yourselves, as the church has the correct understanding of the issue..? Besides the fact that there are also many different churches, with many different beliefs...?

This is probably true, and I believe that this is the basis of religion in general.

Alright, that's an acceptable definition. Though how you can justify believing in a book supposedly inspired by God, that can't get historical or science correct is beyond me. It's like accepting that all the things which are provable to be in error, are in error, but then believing the non-falsifiable part of it anyway.

yes, you did, I missed it sorry.

I don't doubt this. However, history doesn't try to redefine our perception of reality.

Well, despite my personal objections to religion, I can see no problem with this outlook on life. I only really get annoyed with religion when it tries to ignorantly deny the findings of true science. Religion as a way of life, and as a belief to give one hope... I can't see it as being all that bad. Sure you'll get extremists, but you'll get that amongst any group. I actually had to have a rethink lately about why I try to get people to see my reasoning, when I tried disproving religion to someone who I later found out would have probably committed suicide were it not for his beliefs.

Anyway, on with the discussion

Jorge

Originally posted by The_Unknown_Banana
Hello Jorge - you're probably in for a tough fight over here! lol

Hello, TUB. Yes, I've been through many of these "tough fights" and this'll be no exception, I'm sure.

You ought to know that what makes them "tough fights" is the unwillingness of certain people to ever concede anything even in light of rational and sufficiently complete evidence/arguments. Remember that phrase...

Just wanted to state my opinion on the matter. As is the running argument - you cannot disprove God's existance, any more than you can disprove the existance of leprechauns. (they are both non-falsifiable) - of course this depends on the individual's interpretation. If someone states explicitly (for example) that you can see god with your eyes, and you can't, it is reasonable to assume that their interpretation is incorrect. Likewise if someone states that the bible speaks only literally, and contains not even a single contradiction (as it is 'written' by a perfect omniscent being), I can prove them incorrect.

There's a huge amount of discussion just in what you've written here. For instance, I've written a paper on the nature of "proof" and, the bottom line is that no proof will ever suffice - especially if that proof contains empirical elements.

As for Bible contradictions, I've also studied much and written on this topic and the bottom line there is that it depends on the predisposition (what I call the "heart-condition") of the person.

Both of these are very difficult topics, TUB.

My question is: Is it really wise to believe something that cannot be disproven, even by hypothetical means? Everyone's idea of proof or disproof is different, so what (be it anything from your imagination) could possibly disprove God to you?

Here's the problem you have to face: we are all always believing in something that cannot be proven (or disproven) to the satisfaction of everyone even by hypothetical means. Has this ever been brought to your attention?

Leprechauns don't really matter anyway, as they don't demand that you believe in them or else go to hell. At least, no people I know claim that leprechauns have such a requirement. Yet, I believe that if you invest enough faith in their existance, it will soon become truth to you.

In a sense you are right - people choose to believe in the darnest things. But it's one things to believe in it, it's a totally different thing that the object of one's belief has an objectively independent and real existence.

Finally, while I don't believe God exists, I don't believe I can say that he doesn't exist. There is always a possibility for everything - including the existance of leprechauns, or giant flying pink fluffy bunny rabbits.

Maybe I can help but ultimately it's up to you. The existence of God is, IMHO, 'provable'. The acceptance of God is dependent on the person's 'heart condition'. Here's the lesson: the existence will always be in doubt, regardless of any evidence, if there is no acceptance.

It is a sad fact that the vast majority of AGs (anti-God) have a heart condition that prohibits them from ever "seeing" God, and there are reasons for this. On a few occasions I have been overjoyed to discover the "infidel amongst the infidels". Maybe you're one of these (?). We'll see...

Jorge

SignOfTheCross

Actually, some of the best Bible scholars in the world are Bible inerrantists. Might I ask, how does the change from polytheism to monotheism affect the Bibles inerrancy?

I find most of the alleged contradictions simply laughable. I admit many of the attempts to "resolve" the alleged contradictions are weak, but it depends on the quality of the "apologist". That doesn't mean they can't be resolved, just you don't accept them. Whilst you look for contradictions, I look for understanding.

Local or metaphoric.

May I ask what biblical scholars KNOW otherwise?

I didn't mangle anything. More to the point, "the sky is blue" and "the sky is green" do not necessarily contradict. Are they in the same timeframe, is the premise the same etc?

Credentials please?

What the Hebrews believed about science really has nothing to do with the Bible or its purpose, so I am a little skeptical of why you would try and contradict it on a point on which there can be no contradiction (i.e. on science, since the Bible doesn't concern that). Also, I would argue the Hebrew author(s) of Genesis believed in a cosmos, existing above the firmament, of which they call the heavens. Your final statement is absurd, in fact it is the common train of thought among atheists, that the stars falling from the sky is to be taken literally.

No, the Bible is clear children sometimes bear the wrath of their fathers sins, but they are not themselves the subject of the punishment. If a child is disobedient towards his father, by taking away his favourite toy it is not the toy that is punished, but the child. I'm sorry I had to put it in such simple terms, but it's the best analogy I can think of for right now.

If you like.

Peace,
SOTC

Hawkingfan

And you are misunderstanding the atheist argument of "Which God?" You said that we need to provide evidence to disprove the existence of god. But you are referring to the Judeo-Christian god, correct? Or do you believe in EVERY god imaginable? Can you disprove the existence of Osiris, Odin, the invisible pink unicorn? If not, then it follows that they exist, right?
That's THEIR problem, not mine. What is reasonable to believe and what is unreasonable to believe are objective matters that exist without regard to one's perception of them. The laws of parsimony, logic, reason, and science are sufficient enough to define what is and isn't reasonable to believe about reality (not to mention common sense).
That amendment is totally unnecessary. Since Einstein tells us laws of physics are the same to all observers, we would know the the scientific absurdity of invisible leprachauns existing here would also be the same anywhere else. Or for instance, a perpetual motion machine existing on Mars. I cannot go to Mars to find out, but I know it is not reasonable to believe there is one there because it is a scientific impossibility for a perpetual motion machine to exist anywhere.

SignOfTheCross

But Bible scholars are, and although their opinions may differ, I see no problem why I should hold the same opinion as the scholars who work at the Vatican (i.e. inerrancy), especially when I myself, with my own eyes, see straight through the alleged contradictions you claim, especially knowing what really makes a contradiction a contradiction. Also, Catholics have rarely ever been discouraged from reading Scripture, and when they have, it has been locally binding and for their own protection in light of heresies floating around, and the bans have ALWAYS been lifted as soon as the heresies have been defeated. If you ask whether or not the Catholic Church still discourages Scripture reading, then I would say about 50 years ago Catholics were given a temporary indulgence for reading the Scripture for more than 20 minutes everyday.

Yes, and I suppose you, when reading the Bible always the had intention of finding contradictions, inconsistencies etc. This is a prime example of why there is a Church, which governs the right to interpret Scripture without individuals like yourself who think they "know it all". When you show me a competent understanding of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, then I will start listening.

Whether Catholic or protestant, no Christian denies the right of interpretation was given to the church. The problem is new age fundies, or simply ignorant Christiants, who do not know what their church/denomination teaches.

I wont stoop to such a level of absurditiy. No Catholic denies the Church has been subject to evil Popes/Bishops during its reign, but atheism blows it out of proportion, such is its nature I guess. Will I conclude atheism is evil on the account of Stalin? Neither should you concerning Catholicism.

Peace,
SOTC

The_Unknown_Banana

Hello, TUB. Yes, I've been through many of these "tough fights" and this'll be no exception, I'm sure.


Well, I didn't really mean by me, but I'll argue as far as the limits of my understanding goes.

You ought to know that what makes them "tough fights" is the unwillingness of certain people to ever concede anything even in light of rational and sufficiently complete evidence/arguments. Remember that phrase...
Alright, I'll agree. Though I'm anxious to see how you can maintain that and yet still keep the beliefs you have stated.

There's a huge amount of discussion just in what you've written here. For instance, I've written a paper on the nature of "proof" and, the bottom line is that no proof will ever suffice - especially if that proof contains empirical elements.

Surely you can impose a limit on the amount of proof necessary, before believing without further question? And also the kind of proof necessary? This is what science tries to achieve, in my opinion. If not for that, then anything goes. (Including leprechauns)


As for Bible contradictions, I've also studied much and written on this topic and the bottom line there is that it depends on the predisposition (what I call the "heart-condition") of the person.

Both of these are very difficult topics, TUB.
You are no doubt correct here. They can be difficult topics, if you want them to be. However, I maintain my original statement - if you believe the whole bible speaks only literally, and is an error free, perfect record of the past - written by God - then I can show many contradictions. Minor contradictions should do to disprove such a belief in my opinion - such as differing accounts of Jesus' last words, among others.

Here's the problem you have to face: we are all always believing in something that cannot be proven (or disproven) to the satisfaction of everyone even by hypothetical means. Has this ever been brought to your attention?
I have pondered on this I guess. But give me an example of something generally accepted, that cannot be disproven by any means? (Without going all matrix on me, and saying reality is an illusion)

In a sense you are right - people choose to believe in the darnest things. But it's one things to believe in it, it's a totally different thing that the object of one's belief has an objectively independent and real existence.

Yes, this is true. If there really were leprechauns running around, I would have reason to believe they exist. The problem of course is proving ("beyond reasonable doubt") that the object does indeed have an objectively independant and real existance.

Maybe I can help but ultimately it's up to you. The existence of God is, IMHO, 'provable'.
Within what goalposts do you define "proof" when you make such a statement? Is it better than the "proof" that exists for any other religion/belief?


The acceptance of God is dependent on the person's 'heart condition'. Here's the lesson: the existence will always be in doubt, regardless of any evidence, if there is no acceptance.

It is a sad fact that the vast majority of AGs (anti-God) have a heart condition that prohibits them from ever "seeing" God, and there are reasons for this. On a few occasions I have been overjoyed to discover the "infidel amongst the infidels". Maybe you're one of these (?). We'll see...

Jorge
To be honest - probably not, but I'm willing to consider any new evidence that should make me think otherwise. Even if I do it with a skeptical mind :P

[Editted] - Bloody american spelling of the word "colour" Anyway, I'm going to get some sleep now - it's far too late down-under for such a discussion! Later...