(February 11, 2013 at 10:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Lots of mistakes for a supposedly inerrant book, eh?

It's NOT inerrant, I've never said it was. Do you have evidence that it should be?
.

That's why he used the word "supposedly". He could also have gone for "commonly held to be" and kept the context. Language matters.

(February 11, 2013 at 10:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Lots of mistakes for a supposedly inerrant book, eh?

He only thinks it's sorta kinda the Word of God.

And he has magical Holy Ghost powers by which he can tell which parts are divine and which aren't.

(February 11, 2013 at 11:10 pm)Stimbo Wrote: That's why he used the word "supposedly". He could also have gone for "commonly held to be" and kept the context. Language matters.

Yes, language matters. I was pointing out mistakes, so obviously I don't think it's inerrant, right? That's why it was a question. I want to know why he thinks it's "supposedly" inerrant. Did he (or you) take the word of someone else, or did he (or you) read it him/yourself?
.

People who bring up the Holy Spirit as a means of justifying why they hold the true understanding of the Bible are in fact using circular reasoning:

The Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to... ad infinitum

(February 11, 2013 at 11:19 pm)catfish Wrote: Yes, language matters. I was pointing out mistakes, so obviously I don't think it's inerrant, right? That's why it was a question. I want to know why he thinks it's "supposedly" inerrant. Did he (or you) take the word of someone else, or did he (or you) read it him/yourself?

Well, I managed to get his meaning without even having to think about it. The first thing I spotted was that he was agreeing with you. You pointed out some mistakes and Min pointed out the irony inherent in what is generally believed to be an inerrant book. He didn't say that he believes it is inerrant, supposedly or not, and neither did I. Rather, he was pointing out that it is commonly held to be inerrant, not necessarily by any present company but as a general perception.

And I'm fighting against that doctrine and when people propagate the lie, I have to point it out. Why do/did people call it inerrant when there's no reason to? I honestly don't think any logical person could ever read it for themself and come to that conclusion. I'm 99.9% sure that in every case it is because someone else convinced them.
.

(February 11, 2013 at 10:58 pm)catfish Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 10:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Lots of mistakes for a supposedly inerrant book, eh?

It's NOT inerrant, I've never said it was. Do you have evidence that it should be?
.

When you go to a football game do you assume the players in the huddle are talking about YOU? Bit of a neurotic aren't you.

Try not to pretend that there are not plenty of xtian morons who think every word of that fucking bible is LITERALLY true.

(February 11, 2013 at 11:23 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: People who bring up the Holy Spirit as a means of justifying why they hold the true understanding of the Bible are in fact using circular reasoning:

I tell people that if their "holy spirit" is making them believe that evil is good and good is evil, then their "holy spirit" is in fact, a demon... ('cause Imma dick and all that...)
.

(February 11, 2013 at 11:48 pm)catfish Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 11:23 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: People who bring up the Holy Spirit as a means of justifying why they hold the true understanding of the Bible are in fact using circular reasoning:

I tell people that if their "holy spirit" is making them believe that evil is good and good is evil, then their "holy spirit" is in fact, a demon... ('cause Imma dick and all that...)
.

I propose there is no such thing as a "Holy Spirit" for the same reasons that there aren't "personal revelations"; there's no evidence to support the claim that you're being contacted by anyone/anything.