Raf

The way I see it, we have four propositions. Proposition A: The Bible is God-breathed. Proposition B: The Bible is not God-breathed. Proposition C: The Bible contains factual errors and contradictions. Proposition D: The Bible does not contain factual errors or contradictions. A and B are mutually exclusive (taken as a whole). They cannot both be true in totality. They can both be true in part, but then we open a whole new can of worms, so let's keep the premise simple for now and we can explore the possibilities later. The Bible as a whole is either God-breathed or it's not. You can't have both. C and D are also mutually exclusive. This thread questions whether we can accept Proposition A at the same time as we accept proposition C. I don't see why you can't, especially when you recognize that Proposition D is objectively untrue. It does contain errors and contradictions (we've used the Quirinian census as a prime example, and no one has refuted it on this thread or, to an acceptable degree, anywhere else. There was no census that required Joseph to move from where he lived because his great-great-great-great-great-great-etc-grandfather was King David. That's not how censuses work. Plus, the census in question was taken after Herod died, so Jesus couldn't have been born during the census AND during the life of Herod. This is a factual error, pure and simple. As for contradictions, we again note the irreconcilable differences between the accounts in Matthew and Luke. There are errors AND contradictions in the Bible). So to me, the only question that remains is "A and C," or "B and C"? "B and C" is off-topic. There's nothing to discuss there. So we're back to the original question: Is A and C possible? I contend that if you're employing reason AND faith, you must accept A and C. A and D employs faith but abandons reason. You're entitled to the opinion, but you carry the burden of refuting the errors and contradictions. Good luck with that. Personally, I reject appeals to "the original inspired writings" because, frankly, it undermines the Bible we have to such a degree that it becomes pointless to examine. You can't say "This is the Word of God," have me say "ok, but here's a blatant error and/or contradiction" and then answer that with "Well, the original writing was inspired and perfect. You just caught the aberration." There are hundreds of such aberrations. Again, you can accept proposition D as a matter of faith, and I won't argue it. But you can't, in my opinion, draw reasonable inferences from it because reason didn't get you there in the first place. You can try! No one's stopping you. But when you do, there's no guarantee the inference you draw will stand up to reason. That's about as far as I can go in this discussion, because I accept Propositions B and C. But I firmly believe that if anyone is going to argue "A and D," the burden to address errors and contradictions becomes theirs.

And this being the doctrinal section, I do not have a doctrinal argument against your position.

No need. It's your opinion and fine by me. I don't think it's much of an argument.

Why not, instead, adopt the premise that fits the facts? Since the Bible DOES contain errors and contradictions, why adopt a premise that is contrary to the facts? You can still study it, analyze it, try to see things from multiple perspectives, without having to make it all fit like a hand in a hooker. For example, how many were crucified with Jesus? Ask Matthew: 2. Ask Mark: 2. Ask Luke: 2. Ask John: 2. Ask Bullinger/Wierwille: 4. HOW? And more importantly, why? Because two gospels have them crucified at the same time and the other two have them showing up later, so there had to be four? Even though not a single gospel writer gives you four? How about just allowing the contradiction and moving onto something more important, like the number of times Peter denied Jesus, which every single gospel says unequivocally was three times, so it must have been... six. And the cock crowed once. Or twice. Because twice Peter denied him thrice. It's nonsense! They're minor quibbles that are completely beside the point, but Wierwille would have you believe your Bible would absolutely crumble to pieces if Matthew and Luke contradict each other on when the others were crucified with Jesus or whether they both reviled him. It would crumble to pieces if Peter didn't deny Jesus six times, even though not a single gospel says it was six times. Was Judas alive after the crucifixion and resurrection? Yes! Because Paul said Jesus was seen of the 12! Never mind that Matthew makes it clear the death was beforehand. Never mind that not a single gospel writer found it worth noting that Judas returned to the company of the apostles after the betrayal, which would have been a MOST noteworthy act of forgiveness, no? But we can't have Matthew contradicting Luke and John about the number of apostles who saw Jesus and who was missing. We can't have Paul simply be wrong when he says Jesus was seen of the "12" after his resurrection (probably because the story of Judas' betrayal had not yet been fabricated, but that's a whole other story. So one gospel says Jesus appears to "the eleven." Another says the missing apostle was Thomas. So Judas must have been alive and in the company of the apostles. Because heaven forbid any one of the gospel writers slipped on a detail. Easier solution: Not every detail needs to fit to have an honest account. Three denials. Three crucified. 11 apostles after the resurrection. It's not complicated, unless you try to force inerrancy.

No, money is a generic concept of wealth, currency, etc. The statement that the love of money is the root of all evil is generic enough that it covers all the basis. "Scripture" is not, on a couple of levels. What gets included, and what gets excluded? "All scripture" is pretty much all inclusive. But on what basis do you propose James is included in "scripture" but the Gospel of Thomas is not? They're both scripture. So is II Timothy. So is the paragraph of notes I just took explaining why Yankees closer Aroldis Chapman will not be facing criminal charges. So is the Q'uran. Scripture just means "that which is written." So the author of II Timothy says "all scripture." What is he talking about? HE TELLS YOU. He is not talking about the letter he is writing. He is not talking about letters and documents that have yet to be written. He tells you precisely what he's talking about in the preceding verses (I'll save you time: it's the Old Testament). But when he says it's God-breathed, he is not saying that makes it without error or contradiction. Back to John, Jesus says the scripture "cannot be broken." He's talking about the Old Testament too. More precisely, he's talking about THAT scripture. But even more to the point, "cannot be broken" DOES NOT mean without error or contradiction. If it does, then Jesus Christ just proved the Old Testament is not scripture, because the Old Testament contains errors and contradictions galore.

This, of course, has nothing to do with whether the Bible can contain errors or contradict itself. It has only to do with a prophet making a prediction that does or does not come to pass (for example, promising to return within the lifetimes of the people who hear him preach live and in person, but still not having returned nearly 2,000 years later. Just for example). So you can accept the verse in John and the verse in Deuteronomy without having to accept the premise of Biblical inerrancy, because neither verse addresses Biblical inerrancy. At all. Let's look again at the verse in John 10: Let's start with the obvious: The answer to Jesus' question is NO. It is NOT written in the law, "I said You Are Gods." So Jesus was wrong. It's written in Psalms, not in the Law. So as an example of a verse that establishes the Bible cannot contain errors or contradictions, you are pointing to a verse in which Jesus Christ himself makes an error. What does "the scripture cannot be broken" even mean? Does that mean it is without error or contradiction? Because then we have a problem, because the Old Testament is chock full of errors and contradictions. For example, it indicates a population of Hebrew slaves in Egypt that was way, way WAY higher than any such population could have been. There is as much evidence of a Nephite kingdom in pre-Colombian America as there is of widespread Hebrew slavery in pre-Moses Egypt. Heck, there's as much evidence of Nephites as there is of Moses. Which is to say, none. Does the Old Testament contradict itself? Sure it does. All over the place. Errors? Aplenty! So if "the scripture cannot be broken" means "it cannot contain errors or contradictions," then we have a serious problem, because the scripture objectively DOES contain oodles of errors and contradictions.

John 10:35 is not talking about the gospels, itself, Acts, the Epistles or Revelation. I'll check the other verse at a later time, at which point I will be gleefully happy to address the remainder of your post.

Really looking forward to Legends of Tomorrow. It looks like loads of fun.

The Burning Bedknobs and Broomsticks

Those responses are not mutually exclusive. A generation "in search of the truth" can be unusually gullible, especially when the group offering the truth is making an attractive case for its product. And one other thing: WELCOME TO THE GSC, TLC.

Gordon Gecko Henry Pym

The Elephant Man John Hurt Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

You had me at Kirk Lazarus. Robert Downey Jr. Nick Curran Oliver Rose Jack Colton Name the actor

Of course

And his whole family. It was DeBarge, not just El as a solo act. You're up (or you could be a sport and repost Hw/oB's). :)/>

Anyone and everyone can be rude about their beliefs. Sometimes it's impossible to even express an opinion without offending someone else, especially when it comes to religion. You can say "I believe in God," and I can respond "I used to, but I don't anymore," and neither of us is being rude. But the moment you say, "Well, the Bible says you're a fool and like a dog returning to its vomit," you're being rude. I don't care that the Bible actually does say those things. It's rude, whether you came up with it on your own or you're citing an Iron Age goatherder. And if I respond, "Well, you're a brainwashed irrational superstitious nitwit who believes in fairy tales," then I'm being rude. That's why it's imperative that we all check ourselves now and then.

1776 "Winning that ticket, Rose, was the best thing that ever happened to me... it brought me to you. And I'm thankful for that, Rose. I'm thankful. You must do me this honor. Promise me you'll survive. That you won't give up, no matter what happens, no matter how hopeless. Promise me now, Rose, and never let go of that promise." "I promise." "Never let go." "I'll never let go, Jack. I'll never let go."

You were not right.

"To the beat of the ..., dance until the morning light Forget about the worries on your mind, you can leave them all behind."

I should add: I'm really interested in what you mean by "associated with," because my response is taking it one way, while you may mean something else entirely. What I read: "Associated with" means if you're atheist, by extension you should also hold these beliefs/positions. THAT is specifically what I'm arguing against. In that regard, there are no dogmas "associated with" atheism in the A therefore B sense. What you could also mean: "Associated with" means there's a correlation between certain belief/belief systems and atheism. I would not argue with that at all. But a correlation is not an A therefore B proposition. I'll give some obvious examples. Evolution, abortion and life after death. There is nothing about being atheist that requires one to accept evolution. Nothing. At all. Throw in Big Bang cosmology (first proposed by a theist, by the way) and heliocentrism (the belief that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around). Atheism addresses none of these things. You can be an atheist who believes life doesn't evolve, the sun revolves around the earth and the universe has always existed in, pretty much, its present form. On the other hand, you can believe in evolution, the Big Bang and heliocentrism while still believing in God. Heck, some people believe in all those things AND believe in Yahweh! They're not mutually exclusive. BUT, if you were to tell me you're an atheist, I would bet dollars to donuts that you also believe in evolution et al. There's a correlation there. Similarly, there is a correlation between being a pro-lifer and being a theist. But would it surprise you to learn that there are pro-life atheists? There are. Many. What is it about atheism that precludes someone from believing that life begins at conception? Or that even if we quibble over the word "life," that a zygote or fetus is worthy of protection? Nothing in atheism says you can't believe an unborn child, whether conceived nine seconds or nine months ago, is worthy of legal protection. Here's one interesting article on it: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/28/confessions-of-a-pro-life-atheist-why-i-fight-abortion/ But if you were to tell me you're an atheist, I would sooner predict you are pro-choice than pro-life. Finally, life after death. Atheism means you don't believe in gods. That doesn't mean you don't believe in souls or something like them that survive beyond out bodies. You can believe in ghosts, spirits, leprechauns, fairies, Spice Girls and astrology while still being an atheist because you don't believe in gods. Is there something in atheism that precludes someone from believing in reincarnation? Absolutely not. Atheism simply doesn't address any of those issues unless you expand the definition of the term. But once you expand the definition of atheism, you're no longer talking about it. You're talking about atheism AND... Whatever the AND represents. But if you were to tell me you were an atheist, I would predict you don't believe in ghosts or life after death. So, a correlation? Yeah, I'd agree with that. But a statement that atheism necessitates certain other beliefs? No. Atheism necessitates one answer to one question. Do you believe in God? If your answer is not "yes," you are an atheist. If your answer is "maybe," you're still an atheist, because your answer wasn't yes, but you might be more comfortable with the term "agnostic." Fine. If that makes you happy.

"One can't be a Republican." Ever hear of a guy named Christopher Hitchens? Ok, how's about... http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/06/16/yes-there-are-republican-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/ or http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0305/Young-conservative-and-atheist-A-test-for-the-GOP or http://thehumanist.com/commentary/wait-youre-an-atheist-and-a-conservative There are some atheists who are of the OPINION that being Republican is incompatible with being atheist. There are some black people who believe that being Republican is incompatible with being black, and gay people who believe being Republican is incompatible with being gay. Those are opinions, not facts. You can be atheist and Republican. Heck, you can be a gay, black, atheist Republican. The only thing required of atheism is, when someone asks you whether you believe in the existence of God, you must not answer "yes." That's it. You can be pro-choice or pro-life. You can be a communist or a Reaganomics capitalist. You can favor government spending or be a Rand Paul libertarian. Atheism requires no position on any of those issues. "People who believe in God can't be rational." That is, of course, a caricature of what many atheists really do think. But let's be real: theists can be rational. Most theists are. If theists were not capable of being rational, there would be no point in starting threads challenging theists on issues of morality or exploring the fact that scriptures contradict each other. Of COURSE theists can be rational! But the notion that atheists think theists cannot be rational makes an excellent strawman. Not only do I know that believers can be rational, I'm counting on it. I would not be initiating or participating in dialogue if I did not think believers could be rational. [added thought: One can also be atheist and bat-crap crazy/ utterly irrational. Atheism doesn't make you rational.]

"Associated with" is an interesting choice of words. Atheism means one thing and one thing only: I don't believe in God. It doesn't make me liberal or conservative. It does not make me moral or immoral. It does not make me reasonable or unreasonable. It does not make me angry or happy. There are NO assumptions "associated with" atheism. And there is certainly no dogma. However, because many atheists agree on certain issues, people assume that those issues are part of their atheism. They aren't. It's kind of the other way around. Those issues lead to atheism. They are not assumptions or dogma. Dogma is when something is true because someone says so. "Thus saith the Lord." Atheism doesn't have that. No one gets "because I said so" in atheism. So, yeah, let me just ask: What assumptions and dogma are "associated with" atheism? Evolution? Neither an assumption nor dogma. Naturalism? Neither an assumption nor dogma. Science? Neither an assumption nor dogma. Do tell, what assumptions and dogma are associated with atheism? This ought to be fun.

Nikita by Elton John. Free post.

No. More like, it depends on how you're defining "religion."

Raf is enjoying Christmas vacation. Patience or free post.