How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy

[Masterblaster]

Hello boatsnguitars

You say - "I have said I feel morals are all Subjective. I don't have omniscience to know if there is a God and which rules he has written into the Universe for us to adhere to. Do you?"
--------
I like when a person expresses their opinion plainly. Thank You

Not all morals are subjective unless you apply subjectivity to the natural world of creatures.

If a litter of wolf pups tease a runt amongst them to death(as the can do), is that subjective morality. Most people would think the occurrence was devoid of morality.
If an avalanche closes the den entrance forever and kills them all, is that objective morality?

Can the abitary occurrences of the natural world with all it's celestial vagaries, display objective morality to us.
Does it contain a base logic of morality, without which, our own subjective nature would not learn. Is this the base of objective morality, from which our exclusively, subjective morality evolves.

Matthew:5:44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Later....
26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

This is subjective morality being extracted from an observable objective morality in the natural world that is attributed to God. Even the most sceptical amongst us might consider this natural resource as a scrapheap for usable parts?

[TRANSPONDER]

That's very good. Yes. Observation of animal behavior gives us a factual basis for social behavior, at least Survival, of individuals and family and tribe and all the way through agricultural and herding communities to towns and nations, all needing a headman, lawgiver and moral codes.

Evolution made the instincts of survival and never mind Morals. Survival however and reciprocity is just needed to make the family and tribe work. Even the faculty of problem -solving extends this to other tribes we were fighting last week because a bigger tribe has turned up and we must work together.

This is not a cosmic rule -system, nor a 'discovery' that we have to get right. It is something where human well being is clear as a desired outcome, and we have to try to get there how we can if we can.

There is no guarantee we can do it even if it is doable. And the religions may point to ideals but frankly do not provide and answer as, like many alternative paths away from secular technology with all its' flaws, it needs the product the lazy tykes require so they can continue to produce nothing but empty words.

We really can't learn much from religion and nothing from any god -claim.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "This is not a cosmic rule -system, nor a 'discovery' that we have to get right. It is something where human well being is clear as a desired outcome, and we have to try to get there how we can if we can."

We have been in almost total agreement on this

- this is not a discovery
- human well being is the desired outcome
- try, how we can...if we can

In your submission you hint at a different concept within morality, communal morality or cooperative morality, or consensual morality. I call it collective morality.
This is subjective human morality harnessed for the wellbeing of all involved. This 'event', by the demands of it's remit,, requires structure. If it's base is not inspired and correct and robust, the project develops into a lava lamp of machinations that overheats and becomes a danger to all around it, participants or not.

Many structures are being researched.This is like the international playstation ( spacestation). Its components are picked from many garages.
Look, for example, at the United States of America project, a quasi-religious entity. Look at the State of Israel and it's self-confirmed moral identity. And then you have the religions.

The test results suggest difficulties ahead.
All will bow to something, eventually, even if it is to the pagan altar of excess and waste.

My suggestion is to go back to the simplicity of the Kingdom of God , outlined by Jesus and extracted from the objective reality of our existence within and under God. Thanks.

[otseng]

You arbitrarily decided to put your God over and above the natural world, which is a recurring Eden theme in your doctrine.

This is a standard Christian belief. Feel free to start another thread to debate this.

You ask - ". Do you believe atheism can justify objective morality?"

Answer - "Why not.?.Yes"

I've already argued at length why atheism cannot justify objective morality. Please review my posts and provide your counter arguments.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "This is not a cosmic rule -system, nor a 'discovery' that we have to get right. It is something where human well being is clear as a desired outcome, and we have to try to get there how we can if we can."

We have been in almost total agreement on this

- this is not a discovery
- human well being is the desired outcome
- try, how we can...if we can

In your submission you hint at a different concept within morality, communal morality or cooperative morality, or consensual morality. I call it collective morality.
This is subjective human morality harnessed for the wellbeing of all involved. This 'event', by the demands of it's remit,, requires structure. If it's base is not inspired and correct and robust, the project develops into a lava lamp of machinations that overheats and becomes a danger to all around it, participants or not.

Many structures are being researched.This is like the international playstation ( spacestation). Its components are picked from many garages.
Look, for example, at the United States of America project, a quasi-religious entity. Look at the State of Israel and it's self-confirmed moral identity. And then you have the religions.

The test results suggest difficulties ahead.
All will bow to something, eventually, even if it is to the pagan altar of excess and waste.

My suggestion is to go back to the simplicity of the Kingdom of God , outlined by Jesus and extracted from the objective reality of our existence within and under God. Thanks.

Nah. All you said made much sense, but the answer is not religion - any religion. Not just because they are not true but because they don't work, and never have. The thirty years' war over RELIGION devastated Europe and of course became a political matter which at least fought with Rules and an eventual peace. The faithful would have fought to the last Calvinist. I may say that our present troubles are mainly due to Dogma, if not religion. Just look at the unholy bedfellows of a mix of religious USSR, Capitalist CCP, Islamic fundamemtalist and Military Imperialist dynasty. There is no doctrinal or political unity, but Dogmatic totalitarians with a dislike of democracy. Religion failed. At best, it gropes towards humanitarian ideals it can never realise, because religion is tribalistic and thus divisive.

Nobody says it will be easy is we get through this and begin (finally) to work together, but the answer won't be in any religion, not that it ever was. .

[otseng]

I have said I feel morals are all Subjective.

If all morals are subjective, then there is no absolute oughtness to how things should be. One person's judgment on what is right or wrong doesn't have to be another's and neither has any absolute weight over the other. If someone wants to torture babies, it is only a personal value judgment. If justice was not brought to the Nazis involved in the Holocaust, then there's nothing morally wrong with that. If one wants to be unfaithful to their spouse, then one doesn't need to feel any guilt in it. If I want to cut in line in front of someone else, I can do so with impunity since I can simply believe it's not wrong.

Further, if all morals are subjective, any moral argument against God fails. Why should anybody care what atheists claim about the morality of God if it's just their personal judgment? I can then likewise believe all of God's actions are good and neither position has any weight over another. It'd just be personal preferences.

I don't have omniscience to know if there is a God and which rules he has written into the Universe for us to adhere to. Do you?

None of us are omniscient, so we have to go by what we do know. We have to look at the arguments and evidence for either God existing or not. Whichever has the best case, then that is the most reasonable position to hold.

[Masterblaster]

Hello otseng

Masterblaster wrote: "You arbitrarily decided to put your God over and above the natural world, which is a recurring Eden theme in your doctrine."

You say: "This is a standard Christian belief. Feel free to start another thread to debate this"
------
You are the one attempting to stick objective morality on to a Genesis creation myth, not me. You start the thread!

Is God a Supernatural Being?(as you infer, on this thread)

[alexxcJRO]

What do you mean "indirectly"? What do you think a straw man argument is? If I don't have that position and I've supported evidence to back up my position, then you attacking a position I do not hold is a straw man argument.
Not the same thing. Sure, if omniscient means "knows all things", then I can accept God being omniscient.

However, what does omniperfect even mean and how is it different from being perfect? I've asked this many times before and you haven't provided an objective definition. You've even stated God is only "almost omniperfect" and not omniperfect.
I'll let readers judge who is the one making ridiculous arguments out of desperation.

The Bible says God is omniperfect and omniscient indirectly.
"There are no concordance results for "omniscient" in the KJV."
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/ ... rimary_0_1
Thefore your logic is stupid.

Exactly. So, our moral judgment on slavery is subjective. Since it is subjective, it is merely personal opinion and carries no ethical weight. Who knows, 100 years from now when the first global dictator takes over the world, he can make slavery legal and then we'll revert back to it being acceptable. They will then consider us to be wrong in the matter.

The morality derived from the process of Affective Empathy will always give the same result.
The process happens no matter the societal influence and religious propaganda.

If slavery is subjective, why should the Bible make any position on it? Again, you are taking an objectivist approach to claiming the Bible is unethical in regards to slavery. But you've already agreed slavery is subjective.

1.
But according to Christians there is an "Objective Morality from God".
Reality has showed us The Bible and this supposed "Objective Morality from God" was useless and irrelevant in both condemning chattel slaves or keep it.

2.
So much for "Objective Morality from God" which is in fact God's subjective morality according to your logic:

Previously on alexxcJRO: showing otseng's bad logic:

I said:
“One says: "X is wrong because I say so".
Another one says: "X is wrong no matter what anybody says about X".
Please answer:
Q: If I said "X is wrong" because I said so would it be subjective morality or objective morality?
Q: Is saying "X is wrong no matter what anybody says about X" subjective morality or objective morality?”

You said:
“The first is subjective, the second is objective.”
I said: “So according to your logic if a supposed god says X is wrong because the being says so that is subiective morality.”

You said that when a being says X is wrong because the being said so it is subjective morality.
Therefore “One(God) says: "X is wrong because I say so."" is subjective morality.

Words can be bent in anything, it is not exclusive to the Bible.

Anyone can use their subjective interpretation to make the Bible say what they want and match their preconceived beliefs.

[otseng]

What do you mean "indirectly"? What do you think a straw man argument is? If I don't have that position and I've supported evidence to back up my position, then you attacking a position I do not hold is a straw man argument.
Not the same thing. Sure, if omniscient means "knows all things", then I can accept God being omniscient.

However, what does omniperfect even mean and how is it different from being perfect? I've asked this many times before and you haven't provided an objective definition. You've even stated God is only "almost omniperfect" and not omniperfect.
I'll let readers judge who is the one making ridiculous arguments out of desperation.

The Bible says God is omniperfect and omniscient indirectly.
"There are no concordance results for "omniscient" in the KJV."
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/ ... rimary_0_1
Thefore your logic is stupid.

I will also let readers judge whose logic is stupid.

The morality derived from the process of Affective Empathy will always give the same result.

Yes, you've stated that multiple times. I'll let readers also assess the weight of your argument.

Reality has showed us The Bible and this supposed "Objective Morality from God" was useless and irrelevant in both condemning chattel slaves or keep it.

Why should chattel slavery be considered morally objectively wrong if there are cases of it where it is not morally wrong? Since there are cases where it is not morally wrong, this would then make it subjective and therefore there is no ought of how it should be.

Therefore “One(God) says: "X is wrong because I say so."" is subjective morality.

Everything must come from something. But the source is not how I define subjective or objective morality, but the scope of the morality. Objective morality would be moral values that apply to all people at all times. Subjective morality would be moral values that apply to some people at some times.

Words can be bent in anything, it is not exclusive to the Bible.

Anyone can use their subjective interpretation to make the Bible say what they want and match their preconceived beliefs.

Like I said, this can apply to anything.

[boatsnguitars]

I have said I feel morals are all Subjective.

If all morals are subjective, then there is no absolute oughtness to how things should be.

"One ought not to kill oneself if they wish to live a long life."
"One ought to eat well, exercise, and do other things that contribute to a healthy body if ones wants to live longer and better, according to best science and understanding of the human body."

Are those statements objectively true?

What about: "If one doesn't want to be hunted down, one ought not kill someone (given certain objective facts: the person is loved, the law prosecutes murderers, etc.)"

Or, "One ought not cut off ones legs if they want to be an Olympic sprinter."

Seems we can derive a host of "Oughts" from a subjective world.

One person's judgment on what is right or wrong doesn't have to be another's and neither has any absolute weight over the other. If someone wants to torture babies, it is only a personal value judgment. If justice was not brought to the Nazis involved in the Holocaust, then there's nothing morally wrong with that. If one wants to be unfaithful to their spouse, then one doesn't need to feel any guilt in it. If I want to cut in line in front of someone else, I can do so with impunity since I can simply believe it's not wrong.

Further, if all morals are subjective, any moral argument against God fails. Why should anybody care what atheists claim about the morality of God if it's just their personal judgment? I can then likewise believe all of God's actions are good and neither position has any weight over another. It'd just be personal preferences.

I don't have omniscience to know if there is a God and which rules he has written into the Universe for us to adhere to. Do you?

None of us are omniscient, so we have to go by what we do know. We have to look at the arguments and evidence for either God existing or not. Whichever has the best case, then that is the most reasonable position to hold.

Again, the thing Theists miss with moral is that they aren't in a vacuum. Torturing babies is a meaningless statement if there is no such thing as babies or torture.

Likewise, the assumption that the baby doesn't care, or the parents of the baby don't care, or society doesn't care about the treatment of citizens is reductionist to an absurd degree.