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

[otseng]

Bible says indirectly through actions of God: God is unjust.

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

In this world. Who says the world has to be fair? On what basis do you justify the claim that the world has to be fair? Who says God has to treat everyone fairly?

Perfect justice entails perfect fairness in punishing and applying justice. It's simple logic.
Punishing unfairly is not perfect justice but imperfect justice.

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.

Whether it's you, or me, or anyone, people are all different in regards to sexual attraction. Are you saying everyone in the world has to have the exact same sexual attraction and orientation?

Sir it's about what it means to have an erection: the process necessitates sexual attraction and arousal. This is a biological truth.

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

I don't recall making the claim God is omnibenevolent. All I said is I'm not disputing it. But, if we want to debate it now, we can. And for clarity, I'm not making a claim either way God is omnibenevolent or not. But I'm open to see where the evidence leads to.

You did agreed God is omnibenevolent. Then retracted.

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.

Nobody is saying how God should act.

Then why insist that God needs or should be fair?

[otseng]

In other words, if your intuitions agree with God's, it's right. If they do not, it's wrong. Am I on the right track in this summation?

No. First off, I've never claimed that. Secondly, what we are talking about is ethics, so it's not intuition in general, but specifically moral intuition. I've stated that all of us have been affected by the fall, so our moral sense is not perfect. So it's possible for my moral sense to be different from what it ought to be.

My intuition does not direct me to conclude that anal sex is an abomination. Is this because I'm plagued by sin/evil?

How should I know what you are plagued by?

As for intuition, it is not a reliable exclusive guide in all situations. If it were, there'd be no need for any rules or laws. And obviously people have differing "intuitive" stances on sexual matters, so if we were to base ethics purely on intuition, then who is right or wrong? Our moral intuition is more of a helpful guide, but we still need external rules and laws to define what is right.

WHY do I not just KNOW anal sex is wrong? Is (sin/evil/other) detouring me from intuitively thinking that anal sex is an abomination?

Nobody is claiming all people should intuitively know what are all the wrong things.

I will be happy to address what you stated after you answer my unanswered question. You didn't. You are instead providing reasoning. You are addressing oranges, while I'm addressing apples.

Actually, I'm doubtful that you'll ever answer my question.

What we are debating is morality and homosexuality. And I'm addressing the core issue by providing the justification why male on male sex is considered wrong. And if I'm addressing oranges, then I believe I'm the one that's addressing the issue, whereas you addressing apples is not.

[otseng]

There are six primary passages that deal with homosexuality:

1. Lev 18:22

[Lev 18:22 KJV] 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

2. Lev 20:13

[Lev 20:13 KJV] 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

3. Gen 19 - Sodom

[Gen 19:4-5 KJV] 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

4. Rom 1

[Rom 1:26-27 KJV] 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

5. 1 Cor 6

[1Co 6:9-10 KJV] 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

6. 1 Tim 1

[1Ti 1:9-10 KJV] 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

I've provided a deeper analysis of the passages:

* Leviticus
* Genesis and Sodom
* Romans
* 1 Corinthians
* 1 Timothy

I didn't explicitly offer my interpretations of these passages except for the Leviticus passages. For these, I interpret male on male sex to specifically refer to anal sex.

I also believe the Leviticus passages are not specifically dealing with the modern view of homosexuality/gays.

I presented the modern definition of homosexuality and presented how it is not the same as how sexuality was viewed when the Bible was written. The modern view focuses on sexual attraction and orientation and is a modern invention and did not exist in the past.

The widespread concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation and sexual identity is a relatively recent development, with the word itself being coined in the 19th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality

So, the Bible is not addressing homosexuality per se, rather it is simply addressing male on male sex. This prohibition encompasses anyone of any sexual persuasion, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

For example, we see the practice of male on male sex among heterosexuals 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

The Bible does not explicitly prohibit any other areas of sexual conduct, such as lesbian sexual practices, males and nipples, males french kissing, etc. This is not to say all other sexual practices can be considered morally acceptable, but it is just observing the Bible is silent on other practices.

Besides the scriptural prohibitions against male on male sex, there are five additional reasons it should be considered wrong:

1. It is against the original design.

The male and female sexual organs are designed to be used together. Male on male sex is contrary to the original design.

2. It is against the original purpose.

One purpose of hetereosexual sex is the continuation of the human race. Male on male sex would not result in continuation of people.

3. It is linked to display of domination and control.

This is historically how male on male sex primarily manifested. Male on male sex was primarily not because of sexual attraction, but because of display of power of the dominating male. We even see this in prisons today.

4. It is unsafe behavior.

And a case can be made where male-on-male sex carries significant potential to cause harm.

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.

Gay men and other men who have sex with men may be at an increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety.

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.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... t-20047107

That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection is well known

Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate.

Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus - which causes anal and genital warts - is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men.

https://www.health.ny.gov/community/lgb ... ncerns.htm

There are many reasons why gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men may have higher rates of HIV and STDs. Some of them are:
* Prevalence of HIV among sexual partners of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men is 40 times that of sexual partners of heterosexual men;
* Receptive anal sex is 18 times more risky for HIV acquisition than receptive vaginal sex;
* Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men on average have a greater number of lifetime sexual partners.

https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/for-your-health.htm

5. Historically, male on male sex has been considered to be deviant behavior.

Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) beginning with the first edition, published in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_DSM

A common argument male on male sex should be considered acceptable is because we see animals doing this. I argue animals cannot be a source of our moral values:

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. With your argument, all of these things also appear naturally, so are these all morally acceptable and people should engage in them?

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).

Could be. But the fundamental question of ethics is Hume's is-ought problem. Just because something is does not mean something ought. Just because we see reciprocity in nature doesn't mean it's a normative value.

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.

[POI]

(U) I've stated that all of us have been affected by the fall, so our moral sense is not perfect. So it's possible for my moral sense to be different from what it ought to be.

POI Interesting, you actually believe 'the fall' is a thing, and not instead allegory/metaphor/other? Why do you believe this, besides the say-so in an ancient book?

(U) As for intuition, it is not a reliable exclusive guide in all situations. If it were, there'd be no need for any rules or laws. And obviously people have differing "intuitive" stances on sexual matters, so if we were to base ethics purely on intuition, then who is right or wrong? Our moral intuition is more of a helpful guide, but we still need external rules and laws to define what is right.

POI Sounds like intuition is no more or less trustworthy than any other feeling or emotion one may have. So why mention intuition if this is not the basis for objective morality?

(U) Nobody is claiming all people should intuitively know what are all the wrong things.

POI If my intuitions do not align with God's pronouncements, is it even possible that my intuition can still be right?

(U) Actually, I'm doubtful that you'll ever answer my question.

POI Well, I answered your question many responses ago. At the bottom of post 4005, you asked:

"On what justification should it not be bad?"

And yet, I had already informed you that on the topic of 'gay sex', which includes anal sex, I'm agnostic. So why ask me why I think it is not bad? It is completely YOUR burden to demonstrate why anal sex IS bad. Before we do a deep dive here, I would admit there is some 'anal sex' which we could consider 'bad'. But not all of it. God states it IS an abomination. Which means it's all bad, all the time. Is this what you believe too?

(U) What we are debating is morality and homosexuality. And I'm addressing the core issue by providing the justification why male on male sex is considered wrong:

1. It is against the original design. The male and female sexual organs are designed to be used together. Male on male sex is contrary to the original design.

POI Okay. Before we begin, I have to (again) point out video 2. Since you are a Christian moral realist, you do not get to appeal to consequentialism. You rejected this position the second you became a Christian. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If reasons exist to detour against anal sex, then there is no need for a God to ground it. You need to pick between the either/or: 1) God's say-so, <or> 2) your given reason(s) instead becomes the 'god' of this topic.

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"?

b) Was the mouth designed for "oral sex"? Are the hands designed for "hand jobs"?

c) So, it's okay for a male and female to engage in anal sex?

d) How about if the male-on-male sex is consensual, are of age, and they practice monogamy?

I'll skip point (2), for now...

(U) 3. It is linked to display of domination and control. This is historically how male on male sex primarily manifested. Male on male sex was primarily not because of sexual attraction, but because of display of power of the dominating male. We even see this in prisons today.

POI Domination and control can be had through heterosexual sexual activity just the same, (via vaginal, anal, and oral), as well.

(U) 4. 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.

POI The same risk applies when penetrating a female's anus.

(U) Gay men and other men who have sex with men may be at an increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety.

POI Makes sense, if they were brought up in a Christian household. Let the shunning begin!

I'll stop here....

[otseng]

POI Interesting, you actually believe 'the fall' is a thing, and not instead allegory/metaphor/other? Why do you believe this, besides the say-so in an ancient book?

Yes, I believe the fall is a thing. As for why, it is out of scope for the current discussion, but can be addressed later.

POI Sounds like intuition is no more or less trustworthy than any other feeling or emotion one may have. So why mention intuition if this is not the basis for objective morality?

Intuition is not the basis for objective morality.

Definition of intuition:

Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge, without recourse to conscious reasoning or needing an explanation. Different fields use the word "intuition" in very different ways, including but not limited to: direct access to unconscious knowledge; unconscious cognition; gut feelings; inner sensing; inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition; and the ability to understand something instinctively, without any need for conscious reasoning. Intuitive knowledge tends to be approximate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition

Our sense of morality is a form of intuition, in which we have a sense of what is right or wrong without requiring anyone to teach us or have a rational thought process behind it.

POI If my intuitions do not align with God's pronouncements, is it even possible that my intuition can still be right?

You mean God is objectively wrong and you are objectively right?

(U) Actually, I'm doubtful that you'll ever answer my question.

POI Well, I answered your question many responses ago. At the bottom of post 4005, you asked:

"On what justification should it not be bad?"

And yet, I had already informed you that on the topic of 'gay sex', which includes anal sex, I'm agnostic. So why ask me why I think it is not bad? It is completely YOUR burden to demonstrate why anal sex IS bad. Before we do a deep dive here, I would admit there is some 'anal sex' which we could consider 'bad'. But not all of it. God states it IS an abomination.

So what you are "happy to address" is to simply claim agnosticism. This reveals the weakness of the skeptic position where they fail to defend a position, but have to resort to ignorance. The typical skeptic tactic is to attack and pose endless claims and questions while avoiding to take a position and defend it.

Which means it's all bad, all the time. Is this what you believe too?

Yes. Do you believe it can be good?

1. It is against the original design. The male and female sexual organs are designed to be used together. Male on male sex is contrary to the original design.

POI Okay. Before we begin, I have to (again) point out video 2.

Yes, you keep on pointing to the videos, but fail to provide exactly what those videos state that is the relevant point.

Since you are a Christian moral realist, you do not get to appeal to consequentialism.

Makes no sense. I'm not even using consequentialism here.

If reasons exist to detour against anal sex, then there is no need for a God to ground it. You need to pick between the either/or: 1) God's say-so, <or> 2) your given reason(s) instead becomes the 'god' of this topic.

False dichotomy. Rather, I'm using both to show male on male sex is wrong.

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"?

More presenting of endless claims and demands from skeptics.

b) Was the mouth designed for "oral sex"? Are the hands designed for "hand jobs"?

c) So, it's okay for a male and female to engage in anal sex?

Out of scope. I've already stated:

The Bible does not explicitly prohibit any other areas of sexual conduct, such as lesbian sexual practices, males and nipples, males french kissing, etc. This is not to say all other sexual practices can be considered morally acceptable, but it is just observing the Bible is silent on other practices.

d) How about if the male-on-male sex is consensual, are of age, and they practice monogamy?

Doesn't matter if it's consensual. If something is wrong, even if it is consensual does not automatically make something right.

(U) 3. It is linked to display of domination and control. This is historically how male on male sex primarily manifested. Male on male sex was primarily not because of sexual attraction, but because of display of power of the dominating male. We even see this in prisons today.

POI Domination and control can be had through heterosexual sexual activity just the same, (via vaginal, anal, and oral), as well.

Of course.

(U) 4. 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.

POI The same risk applies when penetrating a female's anus.

Yes.

(U) Gay men and other men who have sex with men may be at an increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety.

POI Makes sense, if they were brought up in a Christian household. Let the shunning begin!

Do the studies say it is only from Christian households? Or is it simply just your claim?

[POI]

See post 4022.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4003

Ive read reports from those who practiced appeasing the spirits who otherwise did evil.

Ancient people sought to appease various spirits to gain their favor; it was a sign of respect. Trickster gods were often regarded not only as deceivers but also as teachers and even creators of the world.

That does not match with reports of remote peoples who deal in appeasing spirits. They know they’re evil and say so. And what exactly is a „trickster god?” How does that work? Where are you getting
this from?

Muslims today are afraid of the “Jinn” whom they know is evil.

Islam is a dualistic religion.

Doesn’t change their understanding that the jinn are evil.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4017

That does not match with reports of remote peoples who deal in appeasing spirits. They know they’re evil and say so. And what exactly is a „trickster god?” How does that work? Where are you getting
this from?

Trickster gods are easy enough to research. Religious history is full of them. And where are you getting your "reports of remote peoples" from? Your unfamiliarity with the concept of trickster gods suggests that your knowledge on the subject could do with some expansion.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4017

That does not match with reports of remote peoples who deal in appeasing spirits. They know they’re evil and say so. And what exactly is a „trickster god?” How does that work? Where are you getting
this from?

Trickster gods are easy enough to research. Religious history is full of them. And where are you getting your "reports of remote peoples" from? Your unfamiliarity with the concept of trickster gods suggests that your knowledge on the subject could do with some expansion.

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

[Athetotheist]

[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.