Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: A moral and ethical question for theists
July 12, 2015 at 1:27 pm
(July 12, 2015 at 1:23 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Inerrant?
So I guess all the contradictions and the gospels not being able to get the story right are....NOT errors? ._.
Correct! 
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: A moral and ethical question for theists
July 12, 2015 at 1:28 pm
(July 12, 2015 at 1:27 pm)IATIA Wrote: (July 12, 2015 at 1:23 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Inerrant?
So I guess all the contradictions and the gospels not being able to get the story right are....NOT errors? ._.
Correct!
See my post 46 for what I hope offers you both some clarification. 
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 7318
Threads: 75
Joined: April 18, 2015
Reputation:
73
RE: A moral and ethical question for theists
July 12, 2015 at 1:35 pm
(July 12, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (July 12, 2015 at 12:50 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: I'm fully aware that you're regurgitating whatever your church has taught you. What I'm telling you is that regardless of the source of your information, your statement is contradictory.
To say that the bible is inerrant but not infallible is to say, "The bible contains no mistakes, but it could contain mistakes." That statement is inherently contradictory. It does not make sense. Those two things cannot be simultaneously true.
I see what you're saying, so let me try to clear it up.
I should have said that the inerrancy of the bible has not been fully defined as far as what the exact extent of it is, and I think that's where we're running into problems here. Consider the following paragraph from Catholic Answers which explains this:
"Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ."
So it's important to look at what the underlying principles are as the whole message of the bible, and that's the inerrancy of it, not necessarily each quote literally. (though a catholic may still believe that if he/she so wishes without going against church teaching, though I personally believe much of it was written symbolically/allegorically/metaphorically. A Catholic is free to believe in either.)
source: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/i...-salvation
(July 12, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (July 12, 2015 at 1:27 pm)IATIA Wrote: Correct!
See my post 46 for what I hope offers you both some clarification.
It doesn't.
Inerrant = not containing errors.
Bible contains errors, ergo it is not inerrant.
'The underlying message' has nothing to do with it. Either it contains no errors, or it contains errors, 'the message' notwithstanding.
Posts: 2447
Threads: 19
Joined: May 13, 2015
Reputation:
8
RE: A moral and ethical question for theists
July 12, 2015 at 1:36 pm
(July 12, 2015 at 1:23 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Inerrant?
So I guess all the contradictions and the gospels not being able to get the story right are....NOT errors? ._.
We would have to go through these "contradictions" on a case by case basis. Whole books have been written to demonstrate that what appears to be a contradiction may not actually be a contradiction.
Some survivors of the Titanic said that the ship broke in two. Other survivors said it did not. Is that a contradiction? And does it really make much of a difference when the big picture is that Jesus rose from the dead...I mean, that the Titanic actually sank?
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: A moral and ethical question for theists
July 12, 2015 at 1:36 pm
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2015 at 1:37 pm by IATIA.)
(July 12, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: See my post 46 for what I hope offers you both some clarification.
I would think that the 'inspired word of god' should be unambiguous. Did god not know that the interpretations would be misconstrued at all levels? Even when the books were assembled initially at the First Council of Nicaea? Were they not inspired to correctly choose?
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 7318
Threads: 75
Joined: April 18, 2015
Reputation:
73
RE: A moral and ethical question for theists
July 12, 2015 at 1:38 pm
(July 12, 2015 at 1:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: (July 12, 2015 at 1:23 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Inerrant?
So I guess all the contradictions and the gospels not being able to get the story right are....NOT errors? ._.
We would have to go through these "contradictions" on a case by case basis. Whole books have been written to demonstrate that what appears to be a contradiction may not actually be a contradiction.
Some survivors of the Titanic said that the ship broke in two. Other survivors said it did not. Is that a contradiction? And does it really make much of a difference when the big picture is that Jesus rose from the dead...I mean, that the Titanic actually sank?
We have evidence the titanic existed and sank, which is not the case with Jesus.
It isn't about whether Jesus rise from the dead, though. It's a simple matter: either it contains errors, or it doesn't. You just admitted it does. Ergo, not inerrant.
What is so complicated about this?
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: A moral and ethical question for theists
July 12, 2015 at 1:38 pm
(July 12, 2015 at 1:35 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: (July 12, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I see what you're saying, so let me try to clear it up.
I should have said that the inerrancy of the bible has not been fully defined as far as what the exact extent of it is, and I think that's where we're running into problems here. Consider the following paragraph from Catholic Answers which explains this:
"Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ."
So it's important to look at what the underlying principles are as the whole message of the bible, and that's the inerrancy of it, not necessarily each quote literally. (though a catholic may still believe that if he/she so wishes without going against church teaching, though I personally believe much of it was written symbolically/allegorically/metaphorically. A Catholic is free to believe in either.)
source: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/i...-salvation
(July 12, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: See my post 46 for what I hope offers you both some clarification.
It doesn't.
Inerrant = not containing errors.
Bible contains errors, ergo it is not inerrant.
'The underlying message' has nothing to do with it. Either it contains no errors, or it contains errors, 'the message' notwithstanding.
What this means is it does not contain errors in terms of the overall message being portrayed, etc. But not as far as scientific and historical accuracy. I am not required to believe it was all written in literal form.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: A moral and ethical question for theists
July 12, 2015 at 1:39 pm
Inerrant? I'm still waiting for the archaeological evidence that Exodus isn't one long error (or should I say exercise in national propaganda?).
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: A moral and ethical question for theists
July 12, 2015 at 1:39 pm
(July 12, 2015 at 1:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: (July 12, 2015 at 1:23 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Inerrant?
So I guess all the contradictions and the gospels not being able to get the story right are....NOT errors? ._.
We would have to go through these "contradictions" on a case by case basis. Whole books have been written to demonstrate that what appears to be a contradiction may not actually be a contradiction.
Some survivors of the Titanic said that the ship broke in two. Other survivors said it did not. Is that a contradiction? And does it really make much of a difference when the big picture is that Jesus rose from the dead...I mean, that the Titanic actually sank?
^Exactly this. The big picture, guys! 
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 1382
Threads: 5
Joined: June 30, 2015
Reputation:
39
RE: A moral and ethical question for theists
July 12, 2015 at 1:41 pm
(July 12, 2015 at 1:35 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: (July 12, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I see what you're saying, so let me try to clear it up.
I should have said that the inerrancy of the bible has not been fully defined as far as what the exact extent of it is, and I think that's where we're running into problems here. Consider the following paragraph from Catholic Answers which explains this:
"Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ."
So it's important to look at what the underlying principles are as the whole message of the bible, and that's the inerrancy of it, not necessarily each quote literally. (though a catholic may still believe that if he/she so wishes without going against church teaching, though I personally believe much of it was written symbolically/allegorically/metaphorically. A Catholic is free to believe in either.)
source: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/i...-salvation
(July 12, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: See my post 46 for what I hope offers you both some clarification.
It doesn't.
Inerrant = not containing errors.
Bible contains errors, ergo it is not inerrant.
'The underlying message' has nothing to do with it. Either it contains no errors, or it contains errors, 'the message' notwithstanding.
Damn. Beat me to it.
Yeah...what he said. A text's inerrancy isn't in how much personal value the underlying message has, but whether the text contains contradictions and scientific/historical errors. If we're just ignoring what the text says and extrapolating hidden meanings from it, then it's no different from other literature and should be held in no higher regard.
Verbatim from the mouth of Jesus (retranslated from a retranslation of a copy of a copy):
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you too will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. How can you see your brother's head up his ass when your own vision is darkened by your head being even further up your ass? How can you say to your brother, 'Get your head out of your ass,' when all the time your head is up your own ass? You hypocrite! First take your head out of your own ass, and then you will see clearly who has his head up his ass and who doesn't." Matthew 7:1-5 (also Luke 6: 41-42)
Also, I has a website: www.RedbeardThePink.com
|
