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

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4019

Your answer is basically “I don’t know but surely Google will tell you.”

You seem reluctant to have Google tell you.

You're not calling my bluff. I'm calling yours.

Sigh... This is how our interlocuter operates if you haven't been following some of the other threads. Unsupported claims and often just wrong claims (which are also of course unsupported). Finally, when told how to find the information for themselves, failure to bother looking (or pretending to not need to).

I'll solve it for everyone since I have no problem with a 5 second google search

There are 59 trickster gods on this page alone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trickster_gods

Another source:
https://historycooperative.org/trickster-gods/

And another one with a nice definition:
https://www.learnreligions.com/trickste ... es-2561501

The figure of the trickster is an archetype found in cultures the world over. From devious Loki to the dancing Kokopelli, most societies have had, at some point, a deity associated with mischief, deceit, betrayal and treachery.

[POI]

Dear Otseng,

I'm going to be off the grid over the next week (plus), so I thought I would recap our exchange on this topic. I will address upon my return:

1) Since your intuitions and my intuitions do not align, intuitions do not appear to be a reliable mechanism to determine "objective morality." Since we have differing 'gut reactions' regarding this topic of expressed 'objective morality', (i.e.) "all male-on-male anal sex is an abomination", we instead need to apply a differing tool or tools to determine THE answer. Your gut tells you it's all an abomination. My gut tells me that some of it is instead amoral.

2) Why exactly is ALL male-on-male anal sex an abomination? Thus far, your points do not distinguish why it is all an abomination. but maybe justify some? You asserted the idea of "design". In order to substantiate this claim, you need to not only actually prove a designer, but then also demonstrate why this designer is wise, as well as why we should even care? Not doing so renders your response of 'design' as unfounded and will be discarded as baseless. I already offered counter points for your claim of design, and why this designer seems more-so inept, at best?

3) As I understand it, you are addressing God's rule/law, and also expressing why he applied such rules/laws/other, (if he did not bother to say why). Okay. However, you have your work cut out for you here. God is telling folks that all male-on-male anal sex is an abomination. Which means it disgusts him, and/or he hates it. Why do I not feel the same, if God gives humans their moral compass? Again, I guess I'm distracted by sin/other

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4019

Your answer is basically “I don’t know but surely Google will tell you.”

You seem reluctant to have Google tell you.

1.) I’m not in conversation with Google. 2) You obviously don’t know enough to talk about this subject. It’s like having a discussion and instead of being to discuss your points, you say “read a book.” No discussion possible as you don’t know enough.

You're not calling my bluff. I'm calling yours.

Do you know anything about the subject?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4023

1.) I’m not in conversation with Google. 2) You obviously don’t know enough to talk about this subject. It’s like having a discussion and instead of being to discuss your points, you say “read a book.” No discussion possible as you don’t know enough.

Do you know anything about the subject?

Did you read benchwarmer's last post?

[otseng]

1) Since your intuitions and my intuitions do not align, intuitions do not appear to be a reliable mechanism to determine "objective morality." Since we have differing 'gut reactions' regarding this topic of expressed 'objective morality', (i.e.) "all male-on-male anal sex is an abomination", we instead need to apply a differing tool or tools to determine THE answer. Your gut tells you it's all an abomination. My gut tells me that some of it is instead amoral.

Where did I state it was my "intuition" or "gut feeling" that male on male sex is wrong or an abomination? You're conflating the arguments for justification of OMV and the issue of male on male sex.

Here's what I stated about the justification of OMV - Objective morality of Christianity.

Here's what I stated about male on male sex being wrong - Summary argument on homosexuality.

I'm not relying on my intuition to make a judgment on male on male sex, but provided scriptural and rational justifications.

2) Why exactly is ALL male-on-male anal sex an abomination? Thus far, your points do not distinguish why it is all an abomination. but maybe justify some?

There are no qualifications in Leviticus on the prohibition. Design and purpose also does not change.

You asserted the idea of "design". In order to substantiate this claim, you need to not only actually prove a designer, but then also demonstrate why this designer is wise, as well as why we should even care?

It's not necessary to prove the identity of the designer or demonstrate its attributes to recognize something is designed.

What is more relevant is since you have no claim that male on male sex is acceptable, then there is no counter to the claim that male on male sex is bad.

Not doing so renders your response of 'design' as unfounded and will be discarded as baseless. I already offered counter points for your claim of design, and why this designer seems more-so inept, at best?

Again, out of scope. But it can be addressed later if necessary.

3) As I understand it, you are addressing God's rule/law, and also expressing why he applied such rules/laws/other, (if he did not bother to say why). Okay. However, you have your work cut out for you here. God is telling folks that all male-on-male anal sex is an abomination. Which means it disgusts him, and/or he hates it. Why do I not feel the same, if God gives humans their moral compass? Again, I guess I'm distracted by sin/other

As I've stated, we do not have a perfect moral sense. Also, we do not have the ability to act perfectly moral at all times even if we do know what is moral.

[POI]

Leaving tomorrow morning for over a week... FYI, Will be off the grid....

(U) I'm not relying on my intuition to make a judgment on male on male sex, but provided scriptural and rational justifications.

POI Does <your> intuition tell you that ALL male-on-male sex is an abomination, or not?

(U) There are no qualifications in Leviticus on the prohibition.

POI Okay, we agree, God does not really say why all male-on-male anal sex is an abomination in Lev.

(U) It's not necessary to prove the identity of the designer

POI I'm not necessarily asking you to prove the actual identity, but to instead prove ANY intentional designer at all. Can you do that? The claim is that things were not designed to be this way or that way. I'm saying if there is an intentional designer at all, such a proven designer is inept. An inept designer would not be a very credible source in telling us humans what we are, and are not, allowed to do with our own bodies.

(U) since you have no claim that male on male sex is acceptable, then there is no counter to the claim that male on male sex is bad.

POI Wrong. Please remember you agreed all male-on-male anal sex is an abomination. I say certain forms of male-on-male sex are instead neither good nor bad. This is a differing position to yours. If two consenting adults, who are monogamous, and are not violent towards one another, should choose to engage in anal sex practices, why is it still an abomination? I really see no difference verses if instead a male and female, under the exact same set of circumstances, were also wanting to engage in anal sex practices. Is your argument that ALL anal sex is an abomination, or, only between men on men?

(U) Again, out of scope. But it can be addressed later if necessary.

POI I see this is in line with the current scope. One of your reasons for your case, via male-on-male sex always being no bueno, is because of the raised topic of "design". This topic needs to be vetted out. I see, at best, very poor intentional design. And at worst, no intentional design at all. If it's the former, why accept any advice from a poor designer? And to boot, he provides no reason(s) as to why it is bad, and instead leaves the dirty work for the later apologists to explain --> (you). Can you instead just ask him why it's bad, and then tell us? Does he respond to such requests? Would he answer if you, or someone who claims to speak with him, asks him? The globe is starting to fall away from thinking or believing male-on-male anal sex is an abomination. It is no longer illegal in much of the world. The world is falling more and more apart apparently. Maybe it is time for God to lay down the reason(s) so we may know?

(U) As I've stated, we do not have a perfect moral sense.

POI Then we should not trust our intuitions, as it applies to having a gut feeling about what is (right and wrong)?

[otseng]

POI Does <your> intuition tell you that ALL male-on-male sex is an abomination, or not?

How is my intuition even relevant? I've never even brought intuition to decide if male on male sex is right or wrong.

(U) There are no qualifications in Leviticus on the prohibition.

POI Okay, we agree, God does not really say why all male-on-male anal sex is an abomination in Lev.

And there's no need to explain the why for all the laws.

POI I'm not necessarily asking you to prove the actual identity, but to instead prove ANY intentional designer at all. Can you do that? The claim is that things were not designed to be this way or that way.

I don't need to prove any intentional designer either.

It's obvious the penis and the vagina were designed to be used together. The main purpose of the two coming together is to reproduce. Thus it was designed to be this way.

I'm saying if there is an intentional designer at all, such a proven designer is inept. An inept designer would not be a very credible source in telling us humans what we are, and are not, allowed to do with our own bodies.

How is heterosexual sex inept?

POII say certain forms of male-on-male sex are instead neither good nor bad. This is a differing position to yours. If two consenting adults, who are monogamous, and are not violent towards one another, should choose to engage in anal sex practices, why is it still an abomination?

Really the only case where it is an "abomination" would be if they are a Christian or a Jew and they believe in the authority of the Bible. If they do not, then there's no need for them to believe it is an abomination.

I really see no difference verses if instead a male and female, under the exact same set of circumstances, were also wanting to engage in anal sex practices. Is your argument that ALL anal sex is an abomination, or, only between men on men?

I've never argued about sexual practices between a man and a woman. Technically the Bible says nothing about heterosexual anal sex.

POI I see this is in line with the current scope. One of your reasons for your case, via male-on-male sex always being no bueno, is because of the raised topic of "design". This topic needs to be vetted out. I see, at best, very poor intentional design. And at worst, no intentional design at all. If it's the former, why accept any advice from a poor designer?

No, it's obvious there is a design for the penis and vagina to work together for reproduction.

Your poor design arguments had not even been relevant to sex. Instead, what you had brought up was:

1. a) Prove it was designed. And once you prove that, please then illustrate why such a god would design female plumbing to so easily be cross contaminated (via UTI's, fecal contamination, etc), or why we share an airway with a food way (prone for choking), or why the prostate gland runs right through the middle of the urethra, or why we retain a useless appendix which can inflate and rupture. Let me guess, it's because of "evil"?

And to boot, he provides no reason(s) as to why it is bad, and instead leaves the dirty work for the later apologists to explain --> (you).

And as I've repeatedly argued, there is no need to explain the why. And because I answered your question of why I think are the possible reasons then I've done his "dirty work"? Makes no sense.

Can you instead just ask him why it's bad, and then tell us? Does he respond to such requests? Would he answer if you, or someone who claims to speak with him, asks him? The globe is starting to fall away from thinking or believing male-on-male anal sex is an abomination.

The globe is falling away from many principles of the Bible. And we see the repercussions of this in the sad state the entire world is currently in.

The world is falling more and more apart apparently. Maybe it is time for God to lay down the reason(s) so we may know?

Yes, the entire world is falling apart. What's more important is simply obeying the principles of the Bible and not blaming God because He does not explain the why's.

(U) As I've stated, we do not have a perfect moral sense.

POI Then we should not trust our intuitions, as it applies to having a gut feeling about what is (right and wrong)?

I agree we cannot trust our intuitions on determining exactly what is right or wrong. And if we can't trust our intuition, then how can we determine what is right or wrong?

[alexxcJRO]

And I've argued that God is not unjust in the examples of genocide and slavery.

Delusions.

I'm talking about in this world, not in a hypothetical perfect world. This is also not about logic, but ethics. You're claiming how the world ought to act.

Repeating the same nonsense will not make it not be nonsense.
I am not saying that God needs/ought to be perfectly just. The Bible does.
The Bible says "his works are perfect, and all his ways are just".

You didn't answer my question. People have different attractions and arousals. Some people get aroused by simply waking up in the morning.

The parasympathetic system testing stuff during REM does not debunk my point though.
Sir a heterosexual male by definition does not have sexual attraction towards males and cannot obtain an erection while awake without pills because arousal its needed.
This biological truth debunks your nonsense.
One needs to have sexual attractions towards males (homosexual or bisexual) to be aroused to obtain an erection while awake without pills.

Again, I don't recall making the claim God is omnibenevolent. Please provide the post url where I made that claim.
As for all the omni claims of God, including omnibenevolence, I tend to think it's an exagerated view of God that is not warranted, esp the claim God is omnipotent. Another problem is people have differing views of all the omni terms.

1.
Its the second time you do not know what you said. It's ridiculous.
You said this yourself: "I do not dispute God is omnibenevolent.", "I do not dispute God is omni-perfect."

Here:

viewtopic.php?p=1137637#p1137637
viewtopic.php?p=1138995#p1138975

2.
My point argues omnibenevolence out of omniscience not omnipotence sir.

Then why insist that God needs or should be fair?

The desperate straw-man does not die no matter the million explanations.
A perfect God that has as atribute:-> perfect justice would act fair. It is expected.
Again analogy which you ignored before:
A very fat man is expected to have problems going up the stairs. Nobody is saying the very fat man should have problems going up the stairs but that is fact that result from stated reality

[otseng]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #4037]

We're simply rehashing things over and over. I'll let readers assess and judge our arguments.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4023

1.) I’m not in conversation with Google. 2) You obviously don’t know enough to talk about this subject. It’s like having a discussion and instead of being to discuss your points, you say “read a book.” No discussion possible as you don’t know enough.

Do you know anything about the subject?

Did you read benchwarmer's last post?

Yes, he put in links to what those who know something about the subject wrote. I guess I should text with them since they’re educated on the matter. It’s useless to try to discuss a subject with someone who essentially says, “read here! This guy will tell you what I think. I can’t do it myself.”