Quote:Section 1: The Bible

Quote: We believe the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired, infallible, and authoritative Word of God (Matthew 5:18; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). In faith we hold the Bible to be inerrant in the original writings, God-breathed, and the complete and final authority for faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). While still using the individual writing styles of the human authors, the Holy Spirit perfectly guided them to ensure they wrote precisely what He wanted written, without error or omission (2 Peter 1:21).

WTF! Is there even such a thing as a moderate religious person? Or are they all cooking on one burner?
It sounds like a competition for how many fallacies can you squeeze in in one sentence!

Seriously, I'm trying to be open minded and see things from their perspective, and this is where google takes me! Fuck me! Straight in the deep end!

So basically, they believe the claim to be true because the evidence that the claim is true is evidenced by the claim! Sounds legit!
Why did God need to use the writing styles of somebody else? Doesn't that make him less than perfect?
Shit, I'm using logic again... Bad Bad boy!

(July 5, 2016 at 8:02 am)ignoramus Wrote:

Quote:Section 1: The Bible

Quote: We believe the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired, infallible, and authoritative Word of God (Matthew 5:18; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). In faith we hold the Bible to be inerrant in the original writings, God-breathed, and the complete and final authority for faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). While still using the individual writing styles of the human authors, the Holy Spirit perfectly guided them to ensure they wrote precisely what He wanted written, without error or omission (2 Peter 1:21).

WTF!  Is there even such a thing as a moderate religious person? Or are they all cooking on one burner?
It sounds like a competition for how many fallacies can you squeeze in in one sentence!

Seriously, I'm trying to be open minded and see things from their perspective, and this is where google takes me! Fuck me! Straight in the deep end!

So basically, they believe the claim to be true because the evidence that the claim is true is evidenced by the claim! Sounds legit!
Why did God need to use the writing styles of somebody else? Doesn't that make him less than perfect?
Shit, I'm using logic again... Bad Bad boy!

Well one. The bible never actually makes the claim of infallibility. Mat 5 is the bit about not one letter of the law changes until it is all over.. and 2 tim 3 is the passage that says all scripture is God breathed and good for 'religious purposes.'

Here's the reason people tend to have to go along with the doctrine of infallibility: The R/C church.. In short they believe the cannon of scripture was never closed and therefore open for change and reinterpretation. And because the pope is supposedly been handed the power Jesus gave peter he then has the power to add or subtract doctrine at will.

The answer to this is to close the cannon of scripture and say the bible is perfect the way it is/Doctrine of infalliblity. which invalidates any papal decrees or doctrine.

The disclaimer from Got questions is about silencing those who would disagree with a Bible based answer over a pope based answer.

Pope based, anyone or any other supposed authority over the Church (like other books, prophets, or "golden tablets that only one man could see")

Even Bob Vander Plaats too ?

This provides motive for government sanctioned lobotomy.

If it gets more believers swilling poison and handling serpents it can't be all bad.

(July 5, 2016 at 8:02 am)ignoramus Wrote: Seriously, I'm trying to be open minded and see things from their perspective, and this is where google takes me!

You: 1) use google to try to see something from a Christian's perspective, then 2) come to an atheist forum to discuss what you found.

Seriously, no, you're not trying to be open minded and understand other people. You're looking for faults in other people.

Look, I'll be honest with you. Does any of us really know for sure that God is real or even that our God is the real one? No! But that's the whole point. It's not about being right, it's more of an emotional experience than anything else, really. Believing in something against all evidence is incredibly liberating. It gives your life purpose and meaning.

Then why 'God' ?

How about Bullwinkle instead ??

(July 6, 2016 at 8:33 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Look, I'll be honest with you. Does any of us really know for sure that God is real or even that our God is the real one? No! But that's the whole point. It's not about being right, it's more of an emotional experience than anything else, really. Believing in something against all evidence is incredibly liberating. It gives your life purpose and meaning.

How exactly is coming to a conclusion you know isn't supported by the facts liberating?