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: 2987
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 537 times

Re: chattel slavery

Post #3881

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3876
Sure, people can challenge my summary arguments in any of my positions. Feel free to post your own summary argument to challenge mine.
We shouldn't have to post "summary" arguments. I and others have been challenging and countering your arguments as we go, and that counts as well.
"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith."
--Phil Plate

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2987
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 537 times

Re: homosexuality

Post #3882

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3877
alexxcJRO wrote: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?
Is an authoritarian government authoritarian only if its leaders say that it is? Actions speak louder than words.
"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith."
--Phil Plate

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 #3883

Post by otseng »

POI wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2024 11:55 am 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.
My only goal is defending the position that God and the Old Testament is not immoral. I have no goal to say the ethics of the Bible is "better" than the other ANE documents.

I reference the Bible because that is what skeptics are attacking.

Even if I demonstrated the ethics would a bit better than the others, would it prove anything? No. It would not affect the argument that the Bible is not immoral or the reliability of the Bible.
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"
You've entirely used this passage out of context. It was in reference to the rich entering heaven, not about providing a document on ethics.

[Mat 19:23-26 KJV] 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25 When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
POI Being agnostic to a position shows weakness? I would like to know why God hates gay sex?
OK, then with your logic, I also say I'm agnostic on why God hates male on male sex.

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 #3884

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2024 5:41 pm 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.
I never said I'm not willing. I said I'll do it after one can provide justification on why male on male sex is morally acceptable. If it is morally acceptable, shouldn't this be easy to demonstrate?
Athetotheist wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2024 5:47 pm We shouldn't have to post "summary" arguments. I and others have been challenging and countering your arguments as we go, and that counts as well.
As it's been said, it's like looking for needles in a haystack. And no, it's not "challenging" my arguments because it's been primarily reasserting the claims, not supporting the claims.
Athetotheist wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2024 5:54 pm [Replying to otseng in post #3877
alexxcJRO wrote: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?
Is an authoritarian government authoritarian only if its leaders say that it is? Actions speak louder than words.
Didn't answer my question. But I'll answer it for the skeptics, the Bible does not explicitly say these things. Rather, it is merely the opinions of skeptics that the Bible contains these things.

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 #3885

Post by alexxcJRO »

otseng wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 6:37 am 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?
We have already been on this road.
The actions of the God of the Bible in some parts of the book betray the being as being: impotent, ignorant, unwise, unjust, malevolent and unkind.
These characteristics are drawn indirectly not directly.
otseng wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 6:37 am
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.

I was assuming a God exists for the sake of argumentation and then analyze logically what we have. If things make sense. Things don't.
Q: Why is this so hard to comprehend?

otseng wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 6:37 am
Again, animals are amoral, so we can strike out all animals in regards to discussion on morality.
Please don't ignore my point:

If that would be the case that only supposedly moral agents(humans) could choose this supposedly sinful thing, unnatural thing it would logically follow that non-human animals/non-moral agents would not engage in these acts for they would need to be moral agents and be capable to choose a immoral action, but they are not.
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.
Therefore you are done.
Last edited by alexxcJRO on Sat Feb 24, 2024 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 4519
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1827 times
Been thanked: 1281 times

Re: Homosexuality

Post #3886

Post by POI »

(U) My only goal is defending the position that God and the Old Testament is not immoral.

POI Under the theist's model for 'morality', any such God, (pick your flavor), could never be "immoral". Why? Because whatever is in that God's "nature" is also deemed, by him as well, as "good and moral." Viola, the theist can never be wrong. Again, pick your favorite God.

(U) I have no goal to say the ethics of the Bible is "better" than the other ANE documents.

POI Likely because you can't. Which becomes quite telling.

(U) I reference the Bible because that is what skeptics are attacking.

POI And it is your job to defend God's illogical, as well as sloppy and haphazard given proclamation(s), got it.

(U) Even if I demonstrated the ethics would a bit better than the others, would it prove anything? No. It would not affect the argument that the Bible is not immoral or the reliability of the Bible.

POI At the very least, it would challenge what I stated directly above. But apparently, you cannot or will not.

(U) You've entirely used this passage out of context.

POI LOL! So, it is not possible for God to write a more complete book of ethics/morals, which would not cause earnest perpetual infighting as to what God wants and what God does not want? Does God clearly explain why gay sex is bad? Do all the homosexuals, who practice gay sex, and are also Christians, realize they are in direct conflict with God's word as they knowingly break God's law, over and over again, but maybe somehow think it is actually okay to do so?

(U) I also say I'm agnostic on why God hates male on male sex.

POI I'm asking why God hates gay sex? You can be agnostic. I'm curious as to why he does though?
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."

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 #3887

Post by otseng »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2024 6:17 am
otseng wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 6:37 am 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?
We have already been on this road.
The actions of the God of the Bible in some parts of the book betray the being as being: impotent, ignorant, unwise, unjust, malevolent and unkind.
These characteristics are drawn indirectly not directly.
And I'm arguing again you are not consistent in your argumentation.

Here's what you had stated:
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:50 am What I said is that skeptics do not say God is immoral or ought to behave in a certain manner but that the concept presented is illogical-contradictory.
God could be malevolent and evil or indifferent or omnibenevolent or whatever.
The critique is on logic grounds not ethics like you said.
You cannot have both saying "skeptics do not say God is immoral or ought to behave in a certain manner" and "indirectly draw" God as being these things. What you are doing is making an ethical judgment to make these claims. So, you are basing your entire argument on ethical values.
I was assuming a God exists for the sake of argumentation and then analyze logically what we have. If things make sense. Things don't.
Q: Why is this so hard to comprehend?
I have to ask you the same question. It is not simply assuming God exists, but you also claiming God is "extremely malevolent, unkind, unwise, unjust, ignorant, not loving." This goes beyond assuming God exists, but imputing ethical characteristics to God that you claim God has.
Please don't ignore my point:

If that would be the case that only supposedly moral agents(humans) could choose this supposedly sinful thing, unnatural thing it would logically follow that non-human animals/non-moral agents would not engage in these acts for they would need to be moral agents and be capable to choose a immoral action, but they are not.
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.
Doesn't make any sense. It doesn't work the other way around either. Just because humans engage in an immoral act does not mean animals would not engage in such an act. They could engage in such an act, but for animals it would not be considered immoral since they are not moral agents.
Therefore you are done.
More of skeptics providing faulty argumentation and then claiming victory.

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 #3888

Post by otseng »

POI wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2024 9:00 am POI Under the theist's model for 'morality', any such God, (pick your flavor), could never be "immoral". Why? Because whatever is in that God's "nature" is also deemed, by him as well, as "good and moral." Viola, the theist can never be wrong. Again, pick your favorite God.
That has never been my argument. What've I've done instead is covered the philosophy of morality, examined passages on claims of genocide, and deep dived into the ethics of slavery. If that was my argument, I could've just offered that truism and ended the debate in a single post.
(U) I have no goal to say the ethics of the Bible is "better" than the other ANE documents.

POI Likely because you can't. Which becomes quite telling.
Actually, I can. Do I need to post it? Would it make any difference?
POI And it is your job to defend God's illogical, as well as sloppy and haphazard given proclamation(s), got it.
I'll let readers assess who are the ones that are sloppy and haphazard.
(U) I also say I'm agnostic on why God hates male on male sex.

POI I'm asking why God hates gay sex? You can be agnostic. I'm curious as to why he does though?
I'm likewise curious why you won't answer on what grounds male to male sex should be considered morally acceptable. As I've stated before:
otseng wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 7:23 am
(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.

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:

1 Corinthians 6 passage

Post #3889

Post by otseng »

[1Co 6:9-10 KJV] 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators (G4205), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (G3120), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (G733), 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co ... nc_1068009

fornicators (G4205) - pornos (10x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
fornicator, whoremonger, a male prostitute, a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse

effeminate (G3120) - malakos (4x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
soft, effeminate, catamite, male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness, male prostitute

abusers of themselves with mankind (g733) - arsenokoitēs (2x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
arrēn + koitē - "man" "bed"

arrēn (G730)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
male, man, man child

koitē (G2845)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
bed, conceive, chambering

Other translations:

[1Co 6:9 NLT] 9 Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,

[1Co 6:9 NIV] 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

[1Co 6:9 ESV] 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

[1Co 6:9 NASB20] 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,

[1Co 6:9 NET] 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,

[1Co 6:9 RSV] 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,

[1Co 6:9 HNV] 9 Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 4519
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1827 times
Been thanked: 1281 times

Re: Homosexuality

Post #3890

Post by POI »

(U) I'm likewise curious why you won't answer on what grounds male to male sex should be considered morally acceptable.

POI Again, I have no opinion of gay sex. I'm agnostic. You then state this response shows weakness?

I will also add, for 'good' measure, my opinion does not matter, only Gods does. On the merits of gay sex alone, I find this action amoral. No more or less amoral than a blonde male having heterosexual sex with a brunette female. Now if you want to throw in 'rape', 'cheating', or any other facet(s), then there may exist other factors to warrant another position besides agnosticism. But consensual sex between two adults' alone merits agnosticism for me.

(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 Please do, I've asked many times now. My personal view does not matter. I would like to know THE answer. Please tell me why God hates gay sex and how you know this?
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."

Post Reply