Quote from GotQuestions.org

[vorlon13]

From the OP:

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).


hell, it sounds like I wrote it, LOL !!!

'cept the part about individual writing styles, WTF ?!?!?!?! Sounds like heresy to me !!

[Excited Penguin]

Ah, that is the question, isn't it?

It's a question, but I don't know about the question.

I didn't say it is the question, I said it is the question.

[Drich]

then it's just a coincidence that the OP speech patterns emulate that of a Character written in a book several thousand years old..

I like how you used the word 'character'.

I like how you are avoiding answering the question, by focusing on semantics rather than address the three points that just so happen tie the OP to (your going to like this word, but do and try to stay on topic) Character found in the bible. But that's what you guys do when the hard questions come up isn't it? (Deflect and try and red herring yourself onto a different topic)

[Drich]

That's the thing, the facts for the individual will indeed be supported, even if others are allowed to poop poo on them.

That's not what EP said.  

Maybe we atheists would be a little more sympathetic to your beliefs if you guys could come up with a consistent narrative?

Nuupe.. You 'atheists' would simply default to a collusion argument. Most of Islam is united under one narrative, and I see or hear about any of you praying 5 times a day or blowing up airports.

[GUBU]

Section 1: The Bible

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!

In my experience most religious belivers ignore the vast bulk of what is demanded they believe by their religion. For example 2/3 of Irish people voted to allow gay marriage despite all tge major forms of christianity (supposedly 90% adherence) being deeply homophobic ant them being told to vote against it from the pulpits.

Its mostly a matter of taking the bits you like and shelving the rest these days.

[GUBU]

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?

In the same way as knowing the sound of one hand clapping.

[GUBU]

But I believe in science,

You're doing science wrong. By it's very nature science is a system of disbelief as it looks for evidence and extrapolates based on real world events.

[Whateverist]

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

I see, cuz the authoritative part is what the dripster says it is.  Thanks for clearing that up.