RE: Stupid things religious people say
August 13, 2024 at 9:01 am
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2024 at 9:04 am by Fake Messiah.)
This is how Christian author (and ex-homicide detective) J. Warner Wallace defends contradictions in the New Testament, like how many angels there were in Jesus's tomb on his blog:
Even though I accept and affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, inerrancy is not required of reliable eyewitnesses. In fact, I’ve never had a completely inerrant eyewitness in all my years as a homicide detective. In addition, I’ve never had a case where two witnesses have ever agreed completely on the details of the crime. Eyewitness reliability isn’t dependent upon perfection, but is instead established on the basis of a four part template I’ve described repeatedly…
How does this make sense: he admits that eyewitnesses are not reliable, not inerrant, but he affirms the inerrancy of Scripture that happens to be based on eyewitness testimony. How can Scripture, supposedly based on eyewitness testimony, be inerrant, but eyewitnesses be not inerrant (always to some degree)?
I guess it's what they call "Christian logic" where you pretend to be philosophizing but just put your desires as a conclusion.
Even though I accept and affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, inerrancy is not required of reliable eyewitnesses. In fact, I’ve never had a completely inerrant eyewitness in all my years as a homicide detective. In addition, I’ve never had a case where two witnesses have ever agreed completely on the details of the crime. Eyewitness reliability isn’t dependent upon perfection, but is instead established on the basis of a four part template I’ve described repeatedly…
How does this make sense: he admits that eyewitnesses are not reliable, not inerrant, but he affirms the inerrancy of Scripture that happens to be based on eyewitness testimony. How can Scripture, supposedly based on eyewitness testimony, be inerrant, but eyewitnesses be not inerrant (always to some degree)?
I guess it's what they call "Christian logic" where you pretend to be philosophizing but just put your desires as a conclusion.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"