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 / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

[Gen 19:4-5 KJV] 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

It's pretty much undisputed the men of Sodom wanted to gang rape the male visitors to their city. But, it can be disputed what is being portrayed as evil actions in the Sodom account.

The pro-gay side would say what is morally reprehensible is the gang rape, but not the gay sex since the Sodom account does not mention sex between consenting males.

The anti-gay side would say since the Sodom account would include male-to-male sex, then that would be morally reprehensible.

My position is Gen 19 is not explicit between these two. But, it is clear gay gang rape would be portrayed as morally evil in the Sodom account.

Other passages do explicitly list the sins of Sodom:

Adultery and lying.

[Jer 23:14 KJV] 14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.

Pride, gluttony, idleness, lack of attention to poor and needy.

[Eze 16:49 KJV] 49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Fornication and going after strange flesh.

[Jde 1:7 KJV] 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

[alexxcJRO]

You are using ethical language with "just, wise, loving, and kind".

Sir I am using the language of the Bible.

There are verses in the Bible that portray God as the pinnacle of power, knowledge, wisdom, justice, love and kindness.
It's not my language. I am borrowing certain concepts from parts of the Bible and put them against other parts.

The overall concept of God is contradictory and not consistent.

And that is because it was conjured by ignorant ancient morons. The Bible contains things from multiple people from multiple periods of time.
One would expect to not have consistency when something is not true. When people are making things up.

Yes, of course they are non-moral agents. And one cannot derive morality from non-moral agents. Thus it is illogical to argue homosexuality in humans is morally acceptable from the actions of non-moral agents.

Nobody is saying anything about what is morally acceptable.

Is about the fact that the existence of homosexual behaviour in non-human animals points to the homosexual behaviour as not being something moral agents choose (sinful) but a description of the universe.

Some non-human animals and human animals are predestined to be gay. No animal is choosing to behave in a certain manner(gay). No animal chooses to be gay. It is inherent in their nature because of how the universe works.

If God(pinnacle of power, knowledge, wisdom, justice, love and kindness) exists he is responsible for this and he would not therefore say "“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." because would know this fact of the universe.

Are you saying it is cruel to ensure reproduction and also one's survival?

I am saying that the universe works in such a manner that sentient beings have to engage in cruel, malevolent ways in order to survive and reproduce. Carnivors have to eat other sentient beings(herbivors) and so on.
God if it exists is responsible for all this malevolence and cruelty.

[POI]

(U) I stated, "Therefore, chattel slavery is subjective. Since chattel slavery is subjective, it is impossible to make any normative moral statements about it. Making a statement to either condone it or condemn it is not possible."

POI It is not subjective. God weighed in on it, so it is objective to his nature. Just like he weighed in on cursing your parents.

Slavery is okay.
Cursing your parents is not okay.

Both objective conclusions.

The question remains, if God loves his peeps, why not just state slavery is not okay, like he does with cursing your parents? You can make exceptions for both, but God opts to just reject all of one, (cursing of parents), but not the other, (chattel slavery)?

(U) I'm simply saying the contents of these slavery laws are not significantly different between the Torah and other ANE laws. At a minimum, if other ANE laws are not simply dismissed as immoral or illogical laws, then the same should apply to the Torah.

POI And I'm simply saying why put the Bible in front of any other ancient texts, if it has nothing different, progressive, or more descriptive to say about it?

(U) No, God is not okay with it according to the passages in Leviticus.

POI You see, this is what I have been asking for a few responses now. God is not okay with gay sex.

(U) Why should it be okay? On what grounds should it be considered morally acceptable?

POI I just wanted to know God's view and why he opts for that view? So why is God's nature to dislike gay sex?

[Athetotheist]

Sex acts, between same-sex or opposite-sex partners, can be safe or unsafe depending on the act and the circumstance. Safe sex acts between same-sex partners, therefore, cannot be compared to destructive acts such as kiling, rape etc.

I assume we agree unsafe acts would be unacceptable? So, the question then is what constitutes an unsafe act?

An unsafe act is an act which carries significant potential to cause harm.

Have you some need for a different definition?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3843

It is not simply on logical grounds, but also on ethical grounds. Skeptics point out the "evil" things God does, but in fact they are not objectively evil. So, skeptics need to first demonstrate God's actions are actually evil before they can claim God is illogical.

Here again, the question arises: How would you regard the same behaviors if they were exhibited by any other deity in any other religion?

With your argument, if God is not immoral, then what is illogical or contradictory? If God ought not to behave in a different way, then what is wrong or logically contradictory with the way he has behaved?

Here you're just flipping the argument around and using the conclusion you want to draw as a premise, essentially asking, "If I'm right, how can you be right?"

[otseng]

You are using ethical language with "just, wise, loving, and kind".

Sir I am using the language of the Bible.

There are verses in the Bible that portray God as the pinnacle of power, knowledge, wisdom, justice, love and kindness.
It's not my language. I am borrowing certain concepts from parts of the Bible and put them against other parts.

Here's your language: "God being extremely malevolent, unkind, unwise, unjust, ignorant, not loving." Where in the Bible does it say that? These are moral statements that you are making.

Nobody is saying anything about what is morally acceptable.

Is about the fact that the existence of homosexual behaviour in non-human animals points to the homosexual behaviour as not being something moral agents choose (sinful) but a description of the universe.

Some non-human animals and human animals are predestined to be gay. No animal is choosing to behave in a certain manner(gay). No animal chooses to be gay. It is inherent in their nature because of how the universe works.

Then likewise there's nothing morally wrong for people to "eat their young, behead their mates, kill other animals, engage in incest and rape, eat their own vomit and feces, smell each other's holes, walk around naked, eat other animals alive, and kill the weak." It's simply inherent in nature and that's how the universe works.

If God(pinnacle of power, knowledge, wisdom, justice, love and kindness) exists he is responsible for this and he would not therefore say "“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." because would know this fact of the universe.

It's not a "fact of the universe" for a man to engage in sexual relations with another man. It's a choice to engage in this act. So, it's not God's responsibility for the choices that people make.

Are you saying it is cruel to ensure reproduction and also one's survival?

I am saying that the universe works in such a manner that sentient beings have to engage in cruel, malevolent ways in order to survive and reproduce. Carnivors have to eat other sentient beings(herbivors) and so on.
God if it exists is responsible for all this malevolence and cruelty.

You can't have it both ways and say "nobody is saying anything about what is morally acceptable" and yet also claim God is responsible for malevolence and cruelty. This is special pleading to dismiss morality in regards to homosexuality and to use morality to claim God is responsible for evil.

[otseng]

POI It is not subjective. God weighed in on it, so it is objective to his nature. Just like he weighed in on cursing your parents.

The question remains, if God loves his peeps, why not just state slavery is not okay, like he does with cursing your parents? You can make exceptions for both, but God opts to just reject all of one, (cursing of parents), but not the other, (chattel slavery)?

Don't know why you want to keep on talking about slavery when we've covered it already at length and I've already given my summary statement and we're now discussing homosexuality.

And if you really want to go into cursing parents, we can get to it after discussing homosexuality.

POI And I'm simply saying why put the Bible in front of any other ancient texts, if it has nothing different, progressive, or more descriptive to say about it?

In terms of slavery, I'm not putting the Bible "in front" of the other ANE documents.

(U) Why should it be okay? On what grounds should it be considered morally acceptable?

POI I just wanted to know God's view and why he opts for that view? So why is God's nature to dislike gay sex?

As to why is it in God's nature to dislike male-to-male sex, we can cover that after you answer my questions.

[otseng]

I assume we agree unsafe acts would be unacceptable? So, the question then is what constitutes an unsafe act?

An unsafe act is an act which carries significant potential to cause harm.

Have you some need for a different definition?

Sounds good to me.

And a case can be made where male-on-male sex carries significant potential to cause harm.

Men who have sex with men are at a higher risk of infection with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted infections.

Gay men and other men who have sex with men may be at an increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety.

And research has shown that gay men and other men who have sex with men experience intimate partner violence at a higher rate than do other men.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... t-20047107

That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection is well known

Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate.

Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus - which causes anal and genital warts - is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men.

https://www.health.ny.gov/community/lgb ... ncerns.htm

There are many reasons why gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men may have higher rates of HIV and STDs. Some of them are:
* Prevalence of HIV among sexual partners of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men is 40 times that of sexual partners of heterosexual men;
* Receptive anal sex is 18 times more risky for HIV acquisition than receptive vaginal sex;
* Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men on average have a greater number of lifetime sexual partners.

https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/for-your-health.htm

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3843

It is not simply on logical grounds, but also on ethical grounds. Skeptics point out the "evil" things God does, but in fact they are not objectively evil. So, skeptics need to first demonstrate God's actions are actually evil before they can claim God is illogical.

Here again, the question arises: How would you regard the same behaviors if they were exhibited by any other deity in any other religion?

And my answer remains the same that we're not discussing other religions. If someone wants to attack or defend another religion, they are free to create another thread for that.

Here you're just flipping the argument around and using the conclusion you want to draw as a premise, essentially asking, "If I'm right, how can you be right?"

I've been defending the position God is not immoral. In terms of genocide, God is justified in judging sin that nations commit. In terms of slavery, it falls under subjective morality so objective moral statements cannot be made.

So the questions stand:

With your argument, if God is not immoral, then what is illogical or contradictory? If God ought not to behave in a different way, then what is wrong or logically contradictory with the way he has behaved?

[POI]

(U) Don't know why you want to keep on talking about slavery when we've covered it already at length and I've already given my summary statement and we're now discussing homosexuality.

And if you really want to go into cursing parents, we can get to it after discussing homosexuality.

POI In regard to any topic under 'morality', I can bring up any subject to demonstrate the exact same point(s). And my point(s) are as follows:

(You, as a practicing theist):

- If God does not weigh in on a topic, and your gut opinion perceives it as (bad/good/meh), then either assume God gave you the nature to think it is (bad/good/meh). Or, instead argue such-and-such topic(s) are subjective.

- If God does weigh in on a topic, then God has given his gut opinion on the topic. In regard to "homosexuality", "slavery", "cursing parents", etc., God certainly has weighed in accordingly.

Since you argue God's nature is objective, then such topics are no longer subjective. What God states about such-and-such a topic is now objective. The parts he leaves out just becomes incomplete, (or sloppy and haphazard), as we conclude these are complex topics in need of vetting out accordingly.

Case/point: I do not recall the Bible touching on the topic of "euthanasia"? If God had weighed in on this topic, but bothered not to lay out all the specifics, then he is again (sloppy and reckless) with an entire topic in which is also complex.

(U) In terms of slavery, I'm not putting the Bible "in front" of the other ANE documents.

POI In terms of any topic under 'morality', why place the Bible 'in front' of any other ancient document, (which also lays claims to being given from "God")?

(U) Why should it be okay? On what grounds should it be considered morally acceptable?

POI I'm not here to justify a position. I'm here to learn what THE OBJECTIVE position is regarding 'homosexuality'. So far, we've apparently learned the objective position is that it is not okay to engage in such practices?

(U) As to why is it in God's nature to dislike male-to-male sex, we can cover that after you answer my questions.

POI God is not okay with "homosexuality". Why is God's nature to dislike gay sex?