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

[alexxcJRO]

These are moral judgments and also implying how God ought to act. God should not punish, or not have favorites, or not be homophobic, or not be jealous, etc.
So even though you claim it's purely on logical grounds, you have used moral grounds to make your case, which is contrary to your claim.

Sir I not saying how God should act. Please stop the straw-man.
I am assuming God the ultimate being exists and objective morality exists. Laws of logic are absolute and free will exists. And going from there.

Right, God punished them for their sins.

Non-moral agents are innocent yet are punished and suffer the same along with moral agents.

There is no such thing as "punishing" an amoral agent.

Yet we see in the Bible non-moral agents who are innocent are punished and suffer the same along with moral agents.

Yes, even in David's case sin was punished.

Other people:70000 were punished for one man's sin.
Ergo unjustice.

Yes, God chose Israel as His people. And yes, God does not treat everyone equally.

An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent-perfectly good being would treat everyone equally.
An omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being cannot be but omnibenevolent because it does not have reason to be otherwise.

No, God is not homophobic. What God is against is male on male sex acts.

Gay means being sexually attracted to people of one's own sex and engaging in sexual relations with them.
Homophobic means having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
God is against sex between same sex people(male). Ergo God is showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people. Ergo homophobic.

If atheists don't even believe in a hell, why does it matter?

Its about logic. A perfectly just being punishing moral agents with eternal punishment. It is unjust. Ergo contradiction.

Punishment for sins is justified.

The innocent->non-moral agents are guilty of zero sins. They do not deserve to suffer alongside with the moral agents.

In regards to the garden of Eden, of course God knew what happened. In the other cases you mentioned, it uses anthropomorphic or metaphorical language to describe God's actions.

There were multiple example given where it shows God being ignorant of things.
Q: There are all metaphorical?

Yes, God can be jealous, angry, and regretful. Not so sure about capricious.

Q: How can a perfect being be angry or jealous?
Q: How can an omniscient being be regretful?

Isn't that more special pleading? Only in the case of sexual acts "higher cognitive functions" are not required? Are you saying sex is purely animalistic instincts and require no cognitive decision making?

Heterosexual sex or homosexual sex happens between animals that do not have any highly cognitive functions, higher consciousness forms. The reproductive drive and need for sex comes instinctively. Like the need to eat or sleep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... l_behavior

[otseng]

POI Stay with me here. I'm not offering a strawman. See the part, near the bottom, in red. Let's start with a short video from Frank T. He explains the same argument well in this video. But then his position falls apart at minute 2 and beyond.

How does it fall apart?

For which I respond with the following:
WLC: A Challenge for Christian Moral Realists


So I ask anew... Please tell us WHY gay sex is wrong without becoming circular -- (by using "God" in your argument)?

One of your prior responses gives reasons outside God's say-so, as to why gay sex is bad. But, as the video above explains, you rejected those already given arguments the second you claim morals are subjective without God.

I treat the moral argument for God's existence and the ethics of the Old Testament as two separate issues.

The moral argument is arguing for the best explanation of objective moral values. This argument assumes objective moral values exist. And I've argued extensively that OMV exist starting at:
viewtopic.php?p=1140081#p1140081

I have yet to see any rational argument from skeptics that OMV do not exist. Rather, since they cannot counter the moral argument, the only recourse is they must reject OMV exist because they assume God does not exist.

In none of these arguments for OMV do I mention male-on-male sex. So, by this fact alone shows there is no circular argumentation.

Given OMV exists and God exists, then we specifically looked at the ethics of the Old Testament. As I stated at the onset:

First thing I want to point out is by making an ethical judgment on the God of the Old Testament, it does not demonstrate whether he exists or not. It's not logical to complain about the moral attributes of an entity if that entity does not exist. I'm not going to go around complaining that the flying spaghetti monster is an evil monster and violates basic human ethics. I don't even believe the FSM exists so why should I care what attributes it has? This pretty much goes for any claimed deity. I don't care about the lustful habits of Zeus or the cannibalistic tendencies of Cronus or the self-mutilating character of Chhinnamasta.

However, the attributes of a god would matter if it leads its followers to act unethically. One can rightly complain about such a belief of that religion. But, it is still possible that deity exists, even if one doesn't like its ethical attributes or what it teaches. For example, Christians believe the devil exists, but they do not like his attributes.

Bottom line, the moral characteristics of God cannot demonstrate He does not exist. But moral characteristics is relevant if it leads to unethical behavior of its followers.

As for male on male sex, we see it is prohibited in the Old and New Testaments, so it is wrong according to the Bible.

As for the charge of circular reasoning, male sex is not mentioned in the argumentation for the moral argument of God's existence, so therefore there is no circular logic involved.

You may want to know my position. Well, it's simple. I do not know if morals are objective or subjective? Thus far, they may be merely subjective. If this is the case, then God is offering his subjective opinion. And the only reason(s) I should follow HIS opinion is because (might makes right). Why? Because it is 'in his nature (even if it disagrees with mine)', 'he creates', and 'he has more power'. All such reason(s) apply to the 'might makes right' position.

Makes no logical sense. You'll need to make a more coherent argument without the "I do not know" and "they may be" and "if this is the case" to make any logical conclusion. If you do not know if all morals are subjective, then you cannot assume that is true to argue further.

If "God's nature" was to state gay sex is right, does this mean gay sex is right?

Sure, I'd grant that. Where does the Bible say gay sex is right?

[otseng]

Sir I not saying how God should act. Please stop the straw-man.

OK, if God doesn't need to act any other way, then I pretty much rest my case.

I am assuming God the ultimate being exists and objective morality exists. Laws of logic are absolute and free will exists. And going from there.

OK, I agree with all that.

Non-moral agents are innocent yet are punished and suffer the same along with moral agents.

Other people:70000 were punished for one man's sin.
Ergo unjustice.

If you're not arguing God should've acted any differently, then who cares who are punished?

An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent-perfectly good being would treat everyone equally.

Aren't you claiming here how God should act? I thought you said, "Sir I not saying how God should act."

No, God is not homophobic. What God is against is male on male sex acts.

Gay means being sexually attracted to people of one's own sex and engaging in sexual relations with them.
Homophobic means having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
God is against sex between same sex people(male). Ergo God is showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people. Ergo homophobic.

No, being gay does not necessarily mean engaging in sexual relations with males, just as being straight does not necessarily mean engaging in sexual relations with the opposite sex. It is possible to be gay or straight and also be celibate.

There are also many things God prohibits against heterosexuals (do not divorce, do not commit adultery), but that doesn't mean God is heterophobic.

Its about logic. A perfectly just being punishing moral agents with eternal punishment. It is unjust. Ergo contradiction.

The innocent->non-moral agents are guilty of zero sins. They do not deserve to suffer alongside with the moral agents.

Aren't you claiming here how God should act and He should send everyone to heaven?

There were multiple example given where it shows God being ignorant of things.
Q: There are all metaphorical?

Could be. But what's under discussion is ethics, not God's omniscience.

Q: How can a perfect being be angry or jealous?
Q: How can an omniscient being be regretful?

Should God not get angry or jealous or be regretful?

Isn't that more special pleading? Only in the case of sexual acts "higher cognitive functions" are not required? Are you saying sex is purely animalistic instincts and require no cognitive decision making?

Heterosexual sex or homosexual sex happens between animals that do not have any highly cognitive functions, higher consciousness forms. The reproductive drive and need for sex comes instinctively. Like the need to eat or sleep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... l_behavior

I'm not asking about animals, but for humans. Is sex among humans purely animalistic instincts and require no cognitive decision making?

[POI]

The moral argument is arguing for the best explanation of objective moral values. This argument assumes objective moral values exist.

But your position is circular, because the entire point of the theist's "moral argument" is to prove God's existence. You cannot assert God, in your argument to prove God, that is circular. The second provided video explains why.

And I've argued extensively that OMV exist

Okay?

I have yet to see any rational argument from skeptics that OMV do not exist.

But you have not demonstrated why my response is irrational.

Rather, since they cannot counter the moral argument, the only recourse is they must reject OMV exist because they assume God does not exist.

Negative. The second video explains why they can exist without God. And as I've explained prior, why is something objectively morally 'good' just because it is in God's nature? As you will agree below, if God's nature was to state it is good to have gay sex, does that mean it is 'good'? According to you, yes. This means might does apparently makes right. I explain again below in red.

Given OMV exists and God exists, then we specifically looked at the ethics of the Old Testament.

(2) problems here...

a) It is not clear that God exists.
b) How do you leap from a God... to the Bible God in one fell swoop? There is a lot of work to do to go from generic deism/theism to the Bible God.

**********************************

(U) Makes no logical sense. You'll need to make a more coherent argument without the "I do not know" and "they may be" and "if this is the case" to make any logical conclusion. If you do not know if all morals are subjective, then you cannot assume that is true to argue further.

POI It makes perfect logical sense when you do not ignore what I wrote, based upon a 'technicality'. Here is what I wrote again:

The only reason(s) I should follow HIS opinion is because (might makes right). Why? Because it is 'in his nature (even if it disagrees with mine)', 'he creates', and 'he has more power'. All such reason(s) apply to the 'might makes right' position.

(U) Sure, I'd grant that.

POI Thank you for affirming my position. Again, if God's nature was to endorse gay sex, it would be "right". This is because of (might makes right).

[Diogenes]

I have yet to see any rational argument from skeptics that OMV do not exist. Rather, since they cannot counter the moral argument, the only recourse is they must reject OMV exist because they assume God does not exist.

In none of these arguments for OMV do I mention male-on-male sex. So, by this fact alone shows there is no circular argumentation.

Given OMV exists and God exists, then we specifically looked at the ethics of the Old Testament.

There are fundamental errors shouting from your post. 1st, you ignore the burden of proof, which rests upon the claim "Objective Moral Values exist." The claim of the existence or need for OMV is arbitrary. Like many other errors ingrained in religious thinking, they rest upon an a priori claim that an infinite-creative-all powerful-perfect God exists and always has-always will. [... and he is personal]

As to this 'God' making perfect ethics, that might hold if you ignore the Old Testament where this god is shown breaking his own OMV's repeatedly.

The error in believing in such a concept/being [god] shows up in many examples from evolution to sexuality and science in general.

Because of the belief in God/OMV 'his' scripture must be perfect and authoritative and absolute; thus we come to the fundamental critical thinking error of the fundamentalist: Simplicity/absolutism.

When the Bible says there are two sexes only, than that is an absolute, an OMF [Objective Moral Fact]. This erroneous belief makes it impossible for the believer to accept the reality that humans do not fall into such absolutely perfect and unvarying categories as 'male and female.' Instead of accepting reality, the theistic absolutist must find all variations as perversions/sins.

[Diogenes]

Animals who are non-moral agents do not actually "murder", "torture" or "rape" or be "immoral" although they may be killing in horrific ways their prey or have aggressive mating behavior.
They lack the necessary tools mentioned above.

Then likewise animals do not engage in gay sex.

I disagree with both these claims.

I'm simply using alexxcJRO's argument to make a similar claim. Also, I'm distinguishing between "gay" and "male on male". I'm using the term gay in the modern sense of male same-sex orientation. Are any animals gay based on this definition?

I gave you the cite about how ubiquitous is homosexual behavior among other animals. I don't know about a breakdown into male/male vs female/female and I don't see the slightest relevance to the distinction you make.

What animals do not have are myths about certain behaviors being 'immoral' simply because of animal constructed 'morality' based on tradition or imagined gods.

otseng:

No idea what you're claiming here. Of course animals do not have myths. The questions are:
1. Are animals moral creatures?
2. If they are amoral creatures, how can human morality be derived from animal behavior?

What I'm saying is that animals learn from nature rather than by inventing gods to make up laws that are not based on natural evidence. Only a mythic 'god' could come up with the idea of a law telling you to not eat a particular food. Monkeys may avoid food because of experience with bad taste or other bad consequence. It takes a man to decide avoidance can be based on mere edict without evidence.

And certainly other animals are moral creatures. Do I really have to give the evidence again?

[otseng]

But your position is circular, because the entire point of the theist's "moral argument" is to prove God's existence. You cannot assert God, in your argument to prove God, that is circular.

How am I asserting God to prove God?

And I've argued extensively that OMV exist

Okay?

And since OMV exist, then there needs to be a justification for its existence. The moral argument for God argues God is the best explanation for OMV.

I have yet to see any rational argument from skeptics that OMV do not exist.

But you have not demonstrated why my response is irrational.

I've given my response and I'll let readers judge. I'll also let readers assess the skeptics' responses to the existence of OMV.

The second video explains why they can exist without God.

Please present the arguments and we can debate those points.

As you will agree below, if God's nature was to state it is good to have gay sex, does that mean it is 'good'? According to you, yes.

You actually stated, "If God's nature was to state gay sex is right, does this mean gay sex is right?" Now, you've changed it to "good"? Why the equivocation and false attribution?

This means might does apparently makes right.

Again, it's authority, not necessarily might.

a) It is not clear that God exists.

There are multiple lines of arguments for God's existence, not simply the moral argument. Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God existing than not existing. If need be, we can cover all those arguments after dealing with the ethics of the Bible.

How do you leap from a God... to the Bible God in one fell swoop? There is a lot of work to do to go from generic deism/theism to the Bible God.

This is where comparative religions would come in and this would also be a separate topic.

POI It makes perfect logical sense when you do not ignore what I wrote, based upon a 'technicality'. Here is what I wrote again:

The only reason(s) I should follow HIS opinion is because (might makes right). Why? Because it is 'in his nature (even if it disagrees with mine)', 'he creates', and 'he has more power'. All such reason(s) apply to the 'might makes right' position.

What I was addressing is what you wrote:

"I do not know if morals are objective or subjective? Thus far, they may be merely subjective. If this is the case, then God is offering his subjective opinion."
viewtopic.php?p=1143568#p1143568

How is this a "technicality"?

As for "might makes right", we've covered this multiple times. It is not "might" that makes it right, but authority.

(U) Sure, I'd grant that.

POI Thank you for affirming my position. Again, if God's nature was to endorse gay sex, it would be "right". This is because of (might makes right).

You left out "Where does the Bible say gay sex is right?" Only if you can demonstrate this would it affirm the position gay sex is right.

[otseng]

1st, you ignore the burden of proof, which rests upon the claim "Objective Moral Values exist." The claim of the existence or need for OMV is arbitrary.

I already pointed out the start of a long debate on the existence of OMV.

As to this 'God' making perfect ethics, that might hold if you ignore the Old Testament where this god is shown breaking his own OMV's repeatedly.

Nothing is being ignored. I started the discussion on the ethics of the Old Testament over 30 pages ago.

The error in believing in such a concept/being [god] shows up in many examples from evolution to sexuality and science in general.

OK, bring up your examples and show how they are relevant to ethics.

Because of the belief in God/OMV 'his' scripture must be perfect and authoritative and absolute; thus we come to the fundamental critical thinking error of the fundamentalist: Simplicity/absolutism.

Nobody is claiming the Bible is perfect. I do claim the Bible is authoritative.

When the Bible says there are two sexes only, than that is an absolute, an OMF [Objective Moral Fact]. This erroneous belief makes it impossible for the believer to accept the reality that humans do not fall into such absolutely perfect and unvarying categories as 'male and female.' Instead of accepting reality, the theistic absolutist must find all variations as perversions/sins.

Where does the Bible state there are two sexes only? Yes, the Bible says God created man and woman at the very beginning. But due to many factors (sin, genetic mutations, advances in surgical techniques, societal pressure, etc), sexual identity has been blurred. But this blurring of males and females was not how God originally created man and woman.

I'm simply using alexxcJRO's argument to make a similar claim. Also, I'm distinguishing between "gay" and "male on male". I'm using the term gay in the modern sense of male same-sex orientation. Are any animals gay based on this definition?

I gave you the cite about how ubiquitous is homosexual behavior among other animals. I don't know about a breakdown into male/male vs female/female and I don't see the slightest relevance to the distinction you make.

In the common definitions of gay/homosexual, it is same sex orientation and attraction. I provided the definitions at:
viewtopic.php?p=1142646#p1142646

Since the working definition of gay/homosexual is same sex orientation and attraction, there is no correlation with the animal world since it cannot be demonstrated animals have same sex orientation and attraction.

And certainly other animals are moral creatures.

I disagree and it would be interesting to deep dive into this. Earlier I brought up examples of animal behavior:

Animals also 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.

How would you distinguish between moral and amoral behavior among animals?

Do I really have to give the evidence again?

One of the experiments with the chimps "cooperating" to move the box to get the food was interesting. The first chimp had to constantly pester the second chimp to help him. And once the box moved close enough, the first chimp grabbed all the food. How does this show the chimps are moral creatures?

[POI]

How am I asserting God to prove God?

The second video explains why. The theist's reason for using the OMV argument is to demonstrate the existence of a God. You cannot insert God into the argument to prove God in the same argument. That's circular.

*************************************

(U) The moral argument for God argues God is the best explanation for OMV.

POI See above.

(U) Please present the arguments and we can debate those points.

POI The theist's position, (you), is to assert that you cannot have OMV's without God. My counter is presented in the 2nd video. The 1st video addresses the 2 horns in the perceived 'false dilemma'. Frank T. offers a 3rd horn? But to prove this, you not only need to demonstrate God's existence, but then explain why this conclusion is sound, outside of 'might makes right.' And you have failed. I have explained why. And I will do so again below, for emphasis.

Further, regardless of if one is able or not, to demonstrate OMV's, does not change the conclusion that the theist's reasoning for using the "moral argument" to prove God completely fails regardless of if morals are objective or not. Thus, please stop using the "moral argument" in an attempt to prove a God.

(U) You actually stated, "If God's nature was to state gay sex is right, does this mean gay sex is right?" Now, you've changed it to "good"? Why the equivocation and false attribution?

POI Allow me to clarify my point, so we are on the same exact page here.

(example):

1) Fred had gay sex with Sam.
2) Gay sex is wrong.

I'm examining (option 2)

Please do not get tied up in the given descriptors for (option 2). It could be interchanged with 'good', 'the best', 'right'. other. God is making a judgment call in (option 2), and you are arguing that this is also an objective finding, as with (option 1). Thus far, it is so because of 'might makes right?' I'll explain more below.

(U) Again, it's authority, not necessarily might.

POI You can change the word, but the argument doesn't change. Your argument is still, "because the authority says so". No different than saying, "because the almighty says so." I'll explain more below.

(U) There are multiple lines of arguments for God's existence, not simply the moral argument.

POI The theist's version of the OMV argument, to prove God's existence, is circular. The 2nd video explains why.

(U) Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God existing than not existing.

POI Therefore, the agnostic/atheist/other is:

a) uninformed
b) inept
c) in denial
d) other

Meaning, the theists have won. At this point, it's as futile as debating the shape of the earth with a flat earther. In this scenario, the doubter is the 'flat earther.' Is this how settled the topic is about God's existence? If I am as informed of the presented arguments as you are, I am options <b) thru d)>?

(U) If need be, we can cover all those arguments after dealing with the ethics of the Bible.

POI I'm not here to argue the ethics. I'm instead pointing out its lack in logic. Meaning, without completely changing the definition of the term 'love', some of God's given pronouncements do not look to be objectively compatible? This is not a "moral" observation, but instead a logical one. In part, this skeptic doubts the Bible because it lacks logic.

(U) As for "might makes right", we've covered this multiple times. It is not "might" that makes it right, but authority.

POI Then again, it's still the same old argument. Can I stop him? No. Why is God THE authority and why should anyone care?

(U) You left out "Where does the Bible say gay sex is right?" Only if you can demonstrate this would it affirm the position gay sex is right.

POI You've missed my point. But you unknowingly completely demonstrated my point. If God says it, it becomes so. Gay sex is an abomination because it is in HIS nature to think so. No one has the power to stop him in enforcing his opinion/nature/conclusion. His nature is the only one which matters. This is 'might makes right.'

[Diogenes]

How would you distinguish between moral and amoral behavior among animals?

Do I really have to give the evidence again?

One of the experiments with the chimps "cooperating" to move the box to get the food was interesting. The first chimp had to constantly pester the second chimp to help him. And once the box moved close enough, the first chimp grabbed all the food. How does this show the chimps are moral creatures?

The chimps are just like humans in their moral behavior; tho' they and we recognize moral behavior (cooperate for mutual benefit) they both remain selfish as individuals; both species exhibit morality AND both break the rules regularly. All have "sinned" despite knowing the rules. In several of the videos, the animal (chimp and elephant) elicit cooperation from a partner despite the partner not being as hungry or as eager for the 'reward.' These are examples of reciprocity (the partner will need help when he is hungry in the future).

For me the most telling video is when one ape in a cage gets a better reward for the same behavior as the other. They both recognize the unfairness of this and the 'aggrieved' chimp complains. The other, albeit reluctantly [again we see the very human like interplay between self interest and moral responsibility], shares his reward. This is EXACTLY like human morality. We recognize in ourselves the tension between self interest and our duty to others.