Does your faith in God depend upon

[Elijah John]

Does your faith in God depend upon a perfect, infallible Bible?

If so, why is a perfect Bible necessary for a basic saving faith in God?

If the Bible were shown to be imperfect, would your faith in God collapse?

And if that is the case, (with so much at stake), how can you be fair and objective on a debating site?

[Divine Insight]

Does your faith in God depend upon a perfect, infallible Bible?

My faith in the existence of the Biblical God? Yes.

If so, why is a perfect Bible necessary for a basic saving faith in God?

Because the very thesis of the Biblical mythology is that the Biblical God will condemn us to death (or far worse) if we don't do precisely as he demands.

Therefore, there is no excuse for having given us untrustworthy, ambiguous, or fallible instructions.

If the Bible were shown to be imperfect, would your faith in God collapse?

Absolutely, and as far as I'm concerned this has already been clearly demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.

And if that is the case, (with so much at stake), how can you be fair and objective on a debating site?

I think I'm being fair and objective because the arguments I make are based precisely on the above observations.

I argue against the idea that the God described in the Bible could be real precisely because the Bible is clearly not perfect and infallible.

Also, I point out that my argument stands doubly strong.

How so?

Well, let's assume that my debate opponent concedes that the Bible is indeed fallible and contains any errors, ambiguities, or fallacies of any kind in terms of what this God may have done, or may have directed men to do.

If that's true, then my argument simply moves to the fact (at that point) that the Bible no longer can be said to be a trustworthy description of any actual "God".

In other words, at that point we can no longer point to the Bible as a dependable description of God. Therefore the God that the Bible describes can no longer be held up as a trustworthy or accurate description of God.

After all, my argument is not that there is no God. My argument is simply that the God as described in the Bible cannot be true.

If a God exists that is different from what the Bible describes then so be it. That would be a totally different topic of discussion. Also it would be difficult to discuss a God that is different from what the Bible describes since we would have no other scriptural descriptions to point to as the "Correct Descriptions". So at that point it would be anyone's guess what the "Real God" might be like. We certainly couldn't be pointing to the Bible at that point.

So I'm not arguing that there is no God. I simply argue that the God described in the clearly fallible, undependable, and self-contradictory Biblical canon cannot be true as it is described in those scriptures.

That's my theological argument, and I'm sticking to it.

[dio9]

[Replying to Elijah John]

My faith is experiential, like the blind man when asked if Jesus was the messiah said I can't say but I can say I was blind and now I see. Jesus has saved me a number of times. The bible only supports my experiences in life and prayer. Like I'm saying , ya me too , I can dig it.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Does your faith in God depend upon a perfect, infallible Bible?

What does 'faith in GOD' mean? You have not said.

From what I gather, "Faith in GOD" and "faith in a perfect, infallible Bible" are indistinguishable to some people. GOD is the infallible Bible and the infallible Bible is GOD.

If so, why is a perfect Bible necessary for a basic saving faith in God?

Without the notion of a perfect Bible (holy book) which tells one they require 'saving' through 'faith' in the perfect book, one cannot believe that they are 'saved' if they are not informed that they require 'saving'.

Some have argued that without the 'law' one cannot 'sin' and thus the 'law' allows for people to understand they have 'sinned'. Incidentally this information also comes from the bible, but is it actually true that without being informed - through the law - that one has sinned , that one has not sinned? If the bible is believed infallible, then it must be the case for those who believe.

Perhaps the better question then is "can people's beliefs be infallible" but the bible has that covered anyway by saying "the heart of a human is wicked" in which case, "no - people's beliefs cannot be infallible unless they believe that the bible (or religious books) are infallible.

Of course, as can be seen, the claim the bible is infallible is under question when it is noted that not everyone agrees with the interpretations and even the versions. Therein one can ascertain that the book cannot be infallible.

To further that, it has been through the hands of humans and is processed by the minds of humans, and humans - the bible exclaims, and observation shows clearly - are fallible.

Thus it can be shown that the fallible cannot ascertain what is infallible and what is not.
Indeed, even if it were actually true that the bible was infallible, as soon as it goes through the filters of the fallible human being, it is interpreted and those interpretations therefore have to be regarded as fallible. There is no getting around that. If a book requires interpretation, then the book cannot be infallible.

The fallible cannot know what an infallible thing is.

I am thinking of a perfect device. Q: What device am I thinking of?

If the Bible were shown to be imperfect, would your faith in God collapse?

What is 'faith in GOD'?

One can argue that before books, faith or belief or whatever about GOD, existed.
Even so, acts associated with this might count as forerunners to writ, as they became standardized rituals related to whatever idea of GOD the culture created. The writ came later.

The question then would be, "were the rituals etc associated with cultural ideas of GOD, infallible?" ( iow 'are they representative of a true interpretation of GOD if indeed GOD even actually existed") and the answer would have to be 'no', because we know, even without being told by religion, that human beings make mistakes...only mistakes are just natural - unless they are made over and over again and nothing is learned by them, then they become something else...because we also know that we can 'learn by our mistakes' and thus learn not make the same mistake again...and then we move on to learning about other mistakes, or how some mistakes actually reveal something wonderful that we didn't know about until the mistake was made.

So then we could - if we wanted to - understand that being fallible wasn't necessarily a bad thing. The stupid thing is in not learning from one fallibility and repeating the mistakes.

Some regard that as 'sin'.

Then it could be said that 'Jesus died for my stupidity' in relation to such beliefs.

I digress...intentionally to show how the actuality of our situation naturally opens up to the complexity we are forced to face, if we are not to depend upon simplistic notions in which to place faith and belief in.

My 'faith in GOD' allows for the acknowledgement that the complexity + my ignorance = "GOD has it all sorted, so no need to worry."

This, on the assumption that;

IF
the complexity was created by an intelligent entity,

THEN
inasmuch as the complexity is a wonder not only to behold, but even more so to dissect, "GOD has it all sorted, so no need to worry"

Simple, I know, but simplicity has its place within the complex.

And if that is the case, (with so much at stake), how can you be fair and objective on a debating site?

Under the circumstances prescribed, one cannot be. It is why those who base their beliefs on the infallibility of the bible and the ideas of the "GOD of many names and faces who is ONE", flee from threads, but continue to engage in arguments they have and will continue to flee from, over and over again.

But - to be fair - there would be less of that if atheists understood that this is the process and stopped feeding into it...but I think the reason they don't is because they may have unresolved issues which require closure, and they believe somehow the closure is going to come from that which gave them the unresolved issues in the first place.

Perhaps too, they have found a way in which to resolve their issues and are trying to convince the theists to adopt the same? I have yet to meet a truly sincerely happy individual who also proclaims "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" but whatever! That is not my circus! That battle of an interaction has been going on for thousands of years, and I am reminded of a 'merry-go-around" when I observe it from an outside-of-that-drama-perspective, only without all the 'bells and whistles' as the saying goes...almost a macabre spectacle...if it wasn't for the notion of humor.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Does your faith in God depend upon a perfect, infallible Bible?

What does 'faith in GOD' mean? You have not said.

I also like to know what does a person's faith depend on if not the Bible. Also, whatever the alternative to the Bible is, is it perfect?

The way people want to answer these questions is relative to them. But is that what the Almighty God wants, people believing what is relative to them? In other words, does God want people to learn and live by the Bible regardless of their own personal beliefs about it? How does one get the answer to that question? I had a guy tell me one time that he talks to God by smoking weed. This was how he 'talked to the spirit' and that he doesn't need the Bible. Is that how it is done? What manner to people get their questions answered?

[tam]

Peace to you EJ,

Does your faith in God depend upon a perfect, infallible Bible?

No.

My faith depends upon God (who gave me faith) and His Son (the true and and living Word of God).

If the Bible were shown to be imperfect, would your faith in God collapse?

The bible has been shown to be imperfect... and yet my faith has not collapsed, not even been threatened, not even been dented. Because my faith in God does not depend upon that book or upon its being perfect. My faith is built upon the Rock - Christ Jaheshua - the living Word of God (who continues to teach and lead us into all truth, even according to that book) and He is the One who is without error.


viewtopic.php?p=927265#927265



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[William]

[Replying to post 5 by 2timothy316]

I had a guy tell me one time that he talks to God by smoking weed.

Try eating it.

The Bible: Then God said: Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you.

[Divine Insight]

What is 'faith in GOD'?

One can argue that before books, faith or belief or whatever about GOD, existed.

The problem with this is that this concept of "God" is ill-defined and therefore basically meaningless, especially with respect to being anything that humans could discuss in any meaningful way.

If we are each free to imagine our own idea of what a God "might be like", then the concept becomes nothing more than personal opinions. It certainly couldn't be discussed in any objective manner.

The only thing that gives "objectivity" to the Biblical God is precisely because the Biblical God is describe by an "object", (i.e. the Holy Scriptures).

And even if there are debates about what should or should not be included in those "Holy Scriptures" that too can be made objective by discussing which other objective documents should be included, or rejected.

In other words, once a physical doctrine is embraced as the "Correct description of God", then we at least have an objective description that can be debated. As in the case of the Biblical Canon this is still no guarantee that it will be meaningful. But at least it's something that can be discussed and debated objectively because there are physical objects being debated (i.e. the Scriptures that are being claimed to correctly describe God)

Without that it amounts to nothing more than people offering their own personal subjective opinions on what they would like for a God to be if one happened to exist. We may as well be talking about opinions on the Boogieman at that point.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by 2timothy316]

I had a guy tell me one time that he talks to God by smoking weed.

Try eating it.

The Bible: Then God said: Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you.

OOPS!

There we go, a clear fallacy in the Bible.

We know that there are many plants that are poisonous and will make a person deathly sick or kill them.

So there we have it. Proof positive that the Bible contains false statements.

So there can be no question that the Bible is not infallible.

The fallibility of the Bible is well-established beyond redemption.

[bluethread]

That depends on what is wrong. If the translation is wrong, I check the manuscript language as well as the historical and cultural context. If it is then in the Apostolic letters, I look to the Tanakh and the Apostolic biographical accounts. If it is in the biograghical accounts, I look to the Tanakh, If it is in the Haftorah(writings and prophets), I look to HaTorah. If it is in HaTorah, I examine other philosophical treatises. That is how I would handle errors, if I found them in the Scriptures.