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

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

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

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2963
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 533 times

Re: homosexuality

Post #3871

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3868
"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."
This is the common mistake of conflating a sexual orientation with a sex act. Certain sex acts are riskier than others whether they're performed by same-sex or opposite-sex couples, and there's a lot of overlap.
Gay men and other men who have sex with men may be at an increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety.
.....especially depending on the way they're treated by their society.
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.
That would probably have to do with men tending to be more aggressive than women, which would explain why women more often suffer intimate partner violence in opposite-sex relationships than do men.
"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith."
--Phil Plate

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2963
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 533 times

Re: chattel slavery

Post #3872

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3869

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.
This is a convenient excuse you use to avoid the question. It's a question about comparative religion.

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?
You're simply assuming that the Bible describes God accurately and re-posing the question as if there weren't any legitimate criticism of it.
"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith."
--Phil Plate

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: homosexuality

Post #3873

Post by alexxcJRO »

otseng wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 6:37 am 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.
Some Bible parts language: God is the pinnacle of power, knowledge, wisdom, justice, love and kindness.

Other parts of the Bible have God acting in opposition of that language used. Words that describe such actions are antonyms of used language.
Its only logic.
Some Bible parts Bible language antonyms: impotence, ignorant, unwise, unjust, malevolent and unkind.

otseng wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 6:37 am
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.
Sir,

Some animals engage in sexual cannibalism, mostly females because giving birth takes a lot of energy. Therefore engaging in cannibalism gives the female the required nutrients to successfuly give birth and propagate the specie.
Filial cannibalism occurs because of possible severe hunger and severe nutrients deficiency where an offspring is sacrificed to ensure survival, gets rid of an offspring that takes to long to mature and its sick and non-viable.
Animals engage with a relative because a higher proportion of both of their genes will be passed on, do not have to spend expend energy to distinguish relatives from unrelated individuals.
And so on.

Like I said non-human animals behave( 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) mostly because for survival reasons because how tough and difficult is to survive.
If God exists he is responsible for this cruelty.
God could have made all biological organism to use the sun as source of energy and to reproduce asexually.
God could have made a non-entropic universe where sentient beings do not have to increase entropy-disorder in their surrounding(killing and maiming other sentient being for survival) in order to desperately keep their biological entropy in order.

otseng wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 6:37 am 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.
If that would be the case only supposedly moral agents(humans) would choose this supposedly sinful thing, unnatural thing.
But we see non-humans animals engage in homosexual behaviour. Beings who lack enough mental faculties to comprehend concepts of right and wrong, being who cannot act wrongly. Beings who are driven only by biological instinct to act this was by the ways they were born, by the way the universe works no fault of their own.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: Homosexuality

Post #3874

Post by otseng »

POI wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:36 am 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.
The entire topic of ethics is massive. Is there any single volume of work that goes into every single area related to ethics? I do not know of any. So why put an impossible expectation on the Bible? So, it's really a strawman argument that you're making. You're presenting an impossible situation and because the Bible does not fulfill that impossibility, then the Bible is "sloppy".
(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")?
Each topic has to be weighed individually. You cannot make a generalization about what the Bible says and what other documents say without looking at the specifics of what they say.
(U) Why should it be okay? On what grounds should it be considered morally acceptable?

POI I'm not here to justify a position.
If you (or anyone else) are not willing to justify the position that homosexuality is morally acceptable then it shows the weakness of that 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?
Yes, it's immoral for males to engage in sex with another male.
(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?
You've never answered my questions so I'm under no obligation to answer yours.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: homosexuality

Post #3875

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 6:36 pm This is the common mistake of conflating a sexual orientation with a sex act.
Yes, I totally agree there's a difference. I'll even add this, the Bible says nothing about homosexual orientation. It only addresses sexual acts.
Certain sex acts are riskier than others whether they're performed by same-sex or opposite-sex couples, and there's a lot of overlap.
There's a risk with anything we do. But I've demonstrated evidence from three secular sources stating homosexual sex is much riskier than heterosexual sex.
.....especially depending on the way they're treated by their society.
Yes, that's true. And to be clear, I'm not advocating homosexuals should be treated with disrespect. Like the principle of this forum, people can disagree on things, but we should all respect each other.
That would probably have to do with men tending to be more aggressive than women, which would explain why women more often suffer intimate partner violence in opposite-sex relationships than do men.
Do you have support for this?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: chattel slavery

Post #3876

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 6:46 pm [Replying to otseng in post #3869

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.
This is a convenient excuse you use to avoid the question. It's a question about comparative religion.
Why even the need to compare religions? The charge is the Bible and Yahweh are immoral, not other religions. So, I'm defending the Bible and Yahweh, not other religions.
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?
You're simply assuming that the Bible describes God accurately and re-posing the question as if there weren't any legitimate criticism of it.
Sure, people can challenge my summary arguments in any of my positions. Feel free to post your own summary argument to challenge mine.

If someone makes a claim, then they need to back it up. The skeptical claim is the Bible is illogical and contradictory regarding the morality of the Bible and God. So if God is not immoral, then what is illogical or contradictory?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: homosexuality

Post #3877

Post by otseng »

alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:49 am
otseng wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 6:37 am 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.
Its only logic.
Some Bible parts Bible language antonyms: impotence, ignorant, unwise, unjust, malevolent and unkind.
Again, where does the Bible explicitly say God is these things? Aren't you instead making a moral judgment and only claiming God is these things?
Like I said non-human animals behave( 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) mostly because for survival reasons because how tough and difficult is to survive.
If God exists he is responsible for this cruelty.
Who said animals act with cruelty? Not me. So it's a straw man argument.

For my position, animals are amoral. Morality does not apply to the animal world. Morality only applies to humans. So moral language, such as cruelty, only applies to humans.
If that would be the case only supposedly moral agents(humans) would choose this supposedly sinful thing, unnatural thing.
But we see non-humans animals engage in homosexual behaviour.
Again, animals are amoral, so we can strike out all animals in regards to discussion on morality.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Romans 1 passage

Post #3878

Post by otseng »

[Rom 1:26-27 KJV] 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile (G819) affections (G3806): for even their women did change the natural (G5446) use (G5540) into that which is against nature (G5449): 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural (G5446) use of the woman, burned (G1572) in their lust (G3715) one toward another; men (G730) with men (G730) working that which is unseemly (G808), and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error (G4106) which was meet.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/1/26

vile (G819) - atimia (7x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
dishonour, vile, shame, reproach, disgrace

affections (G3806) - pathos (3x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
inordinate affection, affection, lust, emotion, passion

natural (G5446) - physikos (3x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
natural, instinctive, physical

nature (G5449) - physis (14x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
nature, natural, kind, mankind

burned (G1572) - ekkaiō (1x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
burn, set on fire, kindled

lust (G3715) - orexis (1x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
lust, desire, longing, craving

men (G730) - arrēn (9x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
men, male

unseemly (G808) - aschēmosynē (2x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
unseemly, shame, indecency, pudenda

error (G4106) - planē (10x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
error, to deceive, deceit, delusion, straying

Other translations:

[Rom 1:26-27 ESV] 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[Rom 1:26-27 NASB20] 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, 27 and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing shameful acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

[Rom 1:26-27 NET] 26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[Rom 1:26-27 NIV] 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[Rom 1:26-27 NLT] 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 4493
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1816 times
Been thanked: 1278 times

Re: Homosexuality

Post #3879

Post by POI »

(U) The entire topic of ethics is massive. Is there any single volume of work that goes into every single area related to ethics? I do not know of any. So why put an impossible expectation on the Bible? So, it's really a strawman argument that you're making. You're presenting an impossible situation and because the Bible does not fulfill that impossibility, then the Bible is "sloppy".

POI In actuality, my standards are quite low. My position is also not a strawman argument. I ask again... If the Bible can do <no "better"> on ethics, then why reference the Bible at all? You would think it would be just a BIT "better", being it is from the all-knowledgeable. You mean to tell me you want me to instead compare the Bible to (all other) human only inspired publications? Is this what you have reduced your God to? Further, what-say-you about all the Christians who state, "with God, all things are possible" ?

(U) If you (or anyone else) are not willing to justify the position that homosexuality is morally acceptable then it shows the weakness of that position.

POI Being agnostic to a position shows weakness? I would like to know why God hates gay sex? If the God given reason(s) for gay sex being "wrong" sound reasonable/logical, then maybe I will have no choice but to hate gay sex too.
Last edited by POI on Fri Feb 23, 2024 6:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2963
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 533 times

Re: Homosexuality

Post #3880

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3874
If you (or anyone else) are not willing to justify the position that homosexuality is morally acceptable then it shows the weakness of that position.
If you are not willing to justify the position that the morality of Jehovah [on same-sex relations or anything else] is superior to the morality of other gods, then it shows the weakness of that position.

Post Reply