A moral and ethical question for theists

[Redbeard The Pink]

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

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.