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

Post #3951

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3948
So your statement of other books being therefore false is false.
It isn't my statement. It's the Bible's statement, so the Bible bears the burden of proof for it.
"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 #3952

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 2:03 pm What you are missing is that BOTH the advantaged monkey and the disadvantaged one AGREE about the moral code (unfairness) because when the disadvantaged one complains, the other (reluctantly) agrees and begins sharing his bounty.
As it says in the video, even anthropologists, economists, and philosophers have commented on that study and said, "fairness is a very complex issue, and that animals cannot have it." Frans de Waal also admitted, "So we're getting very close to the human sense of fairness." I could grant that, but that doesn't mean it is equivalent to human fairness.

You still need to answer my question...
otseng wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 8:04 am
otseng wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 7:08 am 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?
You cannot just cherry pick animal behavior and claim it is an example of morality and at the same time ignore all their other behavior. If there is no objective determination of what is moral or amoral behavior among animals, one cannot then claim human ethics can be derived from animal behavior.
It is not INTRINSICALLY more dangerous or abusive as long as there is mutual consent. Sexual intercourse always carries the danger of transmission of disease, even between members of the opposite sex.
The sources I cited does not qualify it with mutual consent or not. More than likely, they were all consensual sex.

Yes, even sex has risks, as with pretty much any human activity. But if things are done outside of how they were originally designed, it inherently carries more risk.
It is PROMISCUITY that carries the greater risk of disease, plus whatever additional danger comes from anal sex due to the nature of the the body part involved.
Yes, promiscuity also increases risk.
The Bible's "morality" re: sex seems to be focused more on the crazy idea that sexual pleasure should only be enjoyed for the production of babies, not for self pleasure (where is the harm in that), AND only between "married" people.
Actually, the Leviticus passages does not explain why male on male sex is prohibited.

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: Might makes right

Post #3953

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 5:56 pm you still haven't defined a difference between 'might' and 'authority.'
Definitions of might:

"power, strength, or force"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... lish/might

"power to do something : force or strength"
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/might

"physical strength, superior power or strength; force"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/might

What is the difference between authority and might (power)?
Sometimes people use the terms Authority and Power interchangeably; however, there are some differences between both. While Authority is the legitimate power or right granted to an individual, position, or entity to exercise control, make decisions, and enforce compliance within a specific domain or scope; Power is the capacity of managers or leaders to exert influence, make decisions, and achieve desired outcomes within an organization.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/differenc ... and-power/
When the question is about influencing or manipulating others, two things go that side by side in the field of management are Power and Authority. These two are used to make people respond in the manner directed. Power is referred to as the capacity of an individual to influence the will or conduct of others. As against, authority is termed as the right possessed by a person to give the command to others.
https://keydifferences.com/difference-b ... ority.html
Power and authority. These two terms carry a lot of weight, especially in the workplace.

Most people might think of these two forms of influence as the same, especially regarding authority vs. power in management.

Although it appears that there’s a fine line between them, they are different in many ways.
https://www.betterup.com/blog/power-vs-authority
And the problem with using morals as a way to distinguish between might and authority is that it begs the question. Having 'authority' grants you the power. Having 'might' grants exactly the same power. Then this comes full circle with the frequently voiced claim by many fundamentalists that, ultimately the 'God of Abraham' has authority to decide what is right, based on his might, his 'Almightiness'
I'm not using morals to argue for authority. Rather, because God is the authority, then what he states is right.

Mae von H
Sage
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:31 am
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 38 times

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

Post #3954

Post by Mae von H »

Athetotheist wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:53 am [Replying to Mae von H in post #3948
So your statement of other books being therefore false is false.
It isn't my statement. It's the Bible's statement, so the Bible bears the burden of proof for it.
But you have NO Bible quote that says other BOOKS are false. The concept isn’t even there in any form.

Solomon said something like the writing of books is endless. Didn't even say some are false.

Mae von H
Sage
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:31 am
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Might makes right

Post #3955

Post by Mae von H »

otseng wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 7:26 am

I'm not using morals to argue for authority. Rather, because God is the authority, then what he states is right.
This is a popular view, but it’s not the Biblical one. What He decides is right because it matches what man knows is right. But, the ways of God are complex to believers and fairly incomprehensible to atheists. Men knew the justice of Solomon not because Solomon had the power. God us even more wise and just.

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

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

Post #3956

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3954
But you have NO Bible quote that says other BOOKS are false. The concept isn’t even there in any form.

Solomon said something like the writing of books is endless. Didn't even say some are false.
That red herring won't work. The Bible claims that every other religion is wrong, so it's claiming that every other religion's books are wrong.
"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith."
--Phil Plate

Mae von H
Sage
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:31 am
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 38 times

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

Post #3957

Post by Mae von H »

Athetotheist wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:03 pm [Replying to Mae von H in post #3954
But you have NO Bible quote that says other BOOKS are false. The concept isn’t even there in any form.

Solomon said something like the writing of books is endless. Didn't even say some are false.
That red herring won't work. The Bible claims that every other religion is wrong, so it's claiming that every other religion's books are wrong.
No, it claims other gods are false and you cannot demonstrate otherwise. Other religions are only false if they claim they are worshipping the One true God. If they know they have many gods, superior to man but inferior to the One, that’s a different matter. The Bible speaks of others gods, superior to humans beings.

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 #3958

Post by alexxcJRO »

otseng wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:25 am No, it's not just logic. Since you're claiming God is unjust, it is your moral judgment. Fundamentally, this is the flaw in your argument. Also, as I've argued, God was not unjust in his actions.
We have been over this.
It's Bible language. Bible says God is perfectly just.
Unjust is just the antonym of just.
otseng wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:25 am As you acknowledged, a homosexual can be celibate, so God would have no problem with that person.
Also, heterosexuals can engage in male on male sex. As a matter of fact, this was probably the main case in ancient history.
1.
Q: Wait what ? A heterosexual can engage in male on male sex.
Q: In what world, delulu land?
Males need to be atracted sexually to get an erection. This attraction comes instintively. It's not a choice. You either have it or not.
Those that are attracted to both females and males are called bisexuals.
2.
A person who engages in sex with same sex persons is a gay person.
Ergo God has a dislike for such a person: gay. Ergo God is homophobic.
otseng wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:25 am You're the one imputing these supposed attributes on God, not the Bible.
Nonsense.
We have been over this already.

The Bible portrays God as omniperfect as it does as omniscient.
I have showed this:
"Omnibenevolence and omniscience:
You agreed God is omnibenevolent and omniscient.

God is perfectly good: "who does no wrong", “is righteous in all his ways”, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all”.
God is perfect in his works: "his works are perfect".
God is perfect in his speech and his words: "his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless;"
God is perfect in his justice: "all his ways are just"

“He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.”
“31 “As for God, his way is perfect:
The Lord’s word is flawless;
he shields all who take refuge in him.”
“48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
“For the Lord is good and his love endures forever;
his faithfulness continues through all generations.”
“17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and faithful in all he does.”
“16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. “
“5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.”
“8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
"8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."


Omnipotence:
The modern Christian logic is the below verses are saying God is doing anything-"all things" that are logically possible. The verses prompted ideas of omnipotence.

"But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”"
"For nothing will be impossible with God.”
"I can do all things through him who strengthens me."
"Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”"


In case of negating omnibenevolence:
1.A benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient Being cannot but love all, show benevolence to all equally or be ignorant to all equally because it does not have reasons to do otherwise and because it knows all, knows this too. Ergo it is omnibenevolent too.
Doing otherwise will make the being not only not be omniscient, but severely ignorant.
2.You cannot have a being that is perfect in its works("his works are perfect") and the same time does imperfect things like not loving all equally or be benevolence to all equally."

otseng wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:25 am You left out "But what's under discussion is ethics, not God's omniscience." Yes, I'm waving away your statements because it is a red herring. We're discussing the ethics of the Old Testament, not God's omniscience.
Were discussing the contradiction between God attributes and Gods actions. Ergo a certain God attribute: omniscience is put on analysis against God's actions.
otseng wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:25 am And where does the Bible explicitly say God is unjust or unloving and not from your moral judgment?
It's an indirect observation infferred from Gods action using meaning of concepts, words.
otseng wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:25 am There is nothing wrong per se with being angry or jealous or even regretful.
Q: There is nothing wrong logically with a being with perfect knowledge to be regretful?
Q: How come?
otseng wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:25 am
Of course humans have a sex drive and an eating appetite. But in both cases, there are cases where such activity can be harmful. These are a result of conscious choices and not purely instinctual actions.
But we are not talking of rape or gluttony.
We are talking of simply having sex like simply eating.
Simply eating which comes from a food appetite drive is ok.
Simply having sex which comes from a sex drive is not ok.
Which off course is stupid and illogical.
A omniscient being having a problem with such a thing is infinitely times more stupid and illogical.
"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: Might makes right

Post #3959

Post by otseng »

POI wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:49 pm POI In regard to human-placed law, the (why) does not equal, "because I say so.". Human laws have reason(s), and can be researched/investigated to obtain those reason(s) regardless of if the law itself states them or not. Many laws from the Bible cannot be investigated for actual reason(s) they are a "sin". All we instead get are (ad hoc and/or post hoc) apologetic speculation.
Perhaps, depends on the source of the laws. If they are dictated from God (like the Ten Commandments), then the reason is because God says so. But if they are case laws, then it can be from people making judgments.
In regard to God, you have stated that the 'goodness' of an action is predicated upon "God's nature".

Where did I state "goodness"?
"Right" - Whatever God says is considered 'right', because he possesses the 'might'.
This is a circular definition.
The "Euthyphro" still stands because it is either 1) because God says so, or 2) there exists reasons - which means we do not need God to tell is why gay sex is 'good' or 'bad' after all. Meaning, God is either arbitrary, or we do not need him at all. The third attempt at an option is merely circular.
That's what you claim, but I'll let readers decide if it's circular.
POI So, why would a 'loving' God state gay sex is an abomination?
I've already addressed this multiple times.
POI I reckon the author of the verse "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" is merely a homophobe. Many/most homophobes are also consistent in being continuously homophobic about the said gay sex acts they do not like.
As I've argued, homosexuality as defined in the modern sense was not how it was viewed in the past. So, the Bible doesn't even address homosexuality in the modern sense. So, the term homophobe doesn't apply

You're also conflating the person with a specific act. God prohibits a specific act (male on male sex), but says nothing about males with a sexual predisposition for other males.

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 #3960

Post by otseng »

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 12:29 am We have been over this.
It's Bible language. Bible says God is perfectly just.
Unjust is just the antonym of just.
Yes, we've been over this multiple times. God is unjust is not explicitly stated in the Bible, but only your moral judgment.
Q: Wait what ? A heterosexual can engage in male on male sex.
Q: In what world, delulu land?
Males need to be atracted sexually to get an erection. This attraction comes instintively. It's not a choice. You either have it or not.
We see this in prisons today...
the vast majority of prison rapists do not view themselves as gay. Rather, most such rapists view themselves as heterosexuals and see the victim as substituting for a woman. From this perspective the crucial point is not that they are having sex with a man; instead it is that they are the aggressor, as opposed to the victim--the person doing the penetration, as opposed to the one being penetrated. Indeed, if they see anyone as gay, it is the victim (even where the victim's sexual orientation is clearly heterosexual).
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report4.html
Heterosexual men in prison view their homosexual acts as being situational and may not consider themselves bisexual. These men often describe how they imagine being with a woman while taking part in sexual activity with a male inmate.

They take part in homosexual activity due to having no “heterosexual outlets”.

A dominant sexual partner in prison is called "daddy" while their submissive partner is called "kid" or “girl”. The dominant partner has their mate take on the feminine role in order to feel more masculine and powerful.

Jonathan Schwartz's research in the documentary Turned Out: Sexual Assault Behind Bars found that "in male prison populations where entitlement to (anal and oral) penetration (or perhaps possessing a 'wife') is the ultimate symbol of domination – [it is] part of the symbolic economy of an all-male, hyper-masculinist environment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality
A person who engages in sex with same sex persons is a gay person.
Ergo God has a dislike for such a person: gay. Ergo God is homophobic.
Repeating your assertion doesn't make it true. And as I demonstrated above with the prison evidence, a person who engages in male on male sex doesn't have to be a gay person.
We have been over this already.
Yes, multiple times and I'll let readers assess our arguments.
otseng wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:25 am And where does the Bible explicitly say God is unjust or unloving and not from your moral judgment?
It's an indirect observation infferred from Gods action using meaning of concepts, words.
Right, it's only your indirect inferred observation and it's not explicitly stated. So it is not a purely logical argument that you are making, but it also involves a personal moral judgment.
Q: There is nothing wrong logically with a being with perfect knowledge to be regretful?
Q: How come?
Because people have a free will and can decide to do things contrary to what God commands.
But we are not talking of rape or gluttony.
We are talking of simply having sex like simply eating.
Simply eating which comes from a food appetite drive is ok.
Simply having sex which comes from a sex drive is not ok.
So clearly there are examples in sex and eating that it can be harmful (rape and gluttony). And I've pointed out, male on male sex is also inherently harmful.

Post Reply