Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?
42 members have voted
-
1. Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.
-
Yes, the Bible is the inspired Word of God from Genesis to Revelation.12
-
Yes, but sections of the Bible are allegorical like the 6 day Creation story; the Genesis Flood, etc.3
-
I am not sure.5
-
Yes and no, some sections are divinely inspired but others are the writers'opinions.6
-
No, the Bible has no authority other than the humans who wrote it.13
-
None of the above. Please explain your answer.6
-
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
6
6
10
Popular Days
Jul 16
11
Jul 19
7
Jul 23
6
Jul 18
6
Top Posters In This Topic
oenophile 11 posts
George Aar 6 posts
Mister P-Mosh 6 posts
geisha779 10 posts
Popular Days
Jul 16 2008
11 posts
Jul 19 2008
7 posts
Jul 23 2008
6 posts
Jul 18 2008
6 posts
George Aar
Gee Geisha,
If you wanted to come across as more arrogant, condescending, and pretentious than you already sound, I'm not even sure how you could accomplish that.
And of course, who needs evidence?
I didn't even realize it was possible to be so cocksure of anything in life, let alone something as vague and subjective as religion.
How DO you do it?
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The pot calling the kettle huh? You really wanna know what prompted me--or are you just name calling? It was you! I was thinking of you and others here who are
so limited in their understanding of Christians and the world we dwell in that I said --that's it. It's been implied I am stupid==misguided and foolish for my belief in
Christ--can't stand it that we claim we know--have faith in the unseen and provide answers through Jesus Christ to those seeking--too bad--I figured you would crawl out of the woodwork. Oh, and I see I am the arrogant one---not old Mr P Mosh--who implied I was a daydreamer right? Typical.
I have to go know-I am going to stand on a street corner in my plain servicable clothes and pass out tracts--while carrying a sign that says "The End is Near"
Too busy to play anymore.
I wasn't going to mention this--but I am having a hard time turning the other cheek lately. A friend of mine was executed a week and a half ago--shot in the
head in front of his wife and 3 small kids. Why? Because he was so cocksure of Christ--We just put a few of our friends on a plane to go care for the family. Then
they are going to an orphan camp to bring electricity in for the abandoned kids in the same country.Christians provide for these kids--not the government.
So please don't talk to me of arrogance--it is pretty arrogant to take anothers life--because they believe in Christ. Happens everyday in this world. You have no
clue.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogLover
My answer was/is "yes." Guess I'm in the minority here. That's okay. I still say yes.
I'm willing to take the "chance" that I'm wrong....and I guess everyone else who has posted here is also willing to take that chance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Perhaps a loving God does not put that much store in whether someone was able to ferret out the RIGHT TRUTH from all the millions of doctrines and religions out there. Perhaps how one lives matters, not the jots and tittles of belief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Oenophile,
Again, nice to speak to you. I really mean that. First let me say--I have not had these conversations in ages. But, I like them when they are civil. So, I appreciate your manner. Not one swipe or sneer from you. Thank-you. Second, let me say Quantum Physics gives me an actual headache, I am not smart enough or learned enough to give a satisfying answer, but that has never stopped me from trying! :) These days my time is spent serving the persecuted church, but I do like these musings. . . .
My degree is 19th Century, Regency Period, British History. I know---a more useless pursuit would be well. . . . . nothing. Anything I tell you relies VERY heavily (Okay Totally)on the work of others.
So. . . singularities huh?
I am assuming that your concern is a violation of the law of conservation and energy within the big bang theory?
How you deal with the idea of the initial--meaning static is not really an option anymore--the theory of an original singularity--the one based on our universe---is based on a model with a mathematical formula--any theory for what is outside the model-cannot contradict the mathmatics--but it should also seek support from outside the cosmos. Human understanding. Do you follow?--I am often as clear as mud. Meaning--
A speculation for outside the model,. . . . could be the flying Spaghetti Monster, another----A former universe. . . . another God.
But, we were talking about blackhole singularities. Singularities define themselves from within their boundries--no relationship to the space-time itself. To approach a black hole singularity you would lose time. They would always be in the future? Also your black hole would have to be large enough to pull all matter in and would shred time. It would have to be rotating within a ring--it would always be future--there is no real evidence they exist.
"The big bang singularity is where all the mass of the universe used to be concentrated. It had all of the properties of a black hole singularity but from it 'grew' space time and matter was released into this space as the fundamental particles of very high energy. This is the big bang. Therefore, the main difference is that a black hole singularity is the end of space time (and pulls matter in) and the big bang singularity is the beginning of space time (where matter and space were made real."
That is why Hawkings work on singularitiyg-boundries is interesting. It is then that you start getting into some heavy duty physics. There are the b boundries-which I think more or less proves the Alpha and Omega--but--then there is the cone shaped singularity.
I am not smart enough to explain all of this, but singularities do not present the problems to theologians you might think. The problems are-- there are difficulties in placing the initial singularity with the moment of creation. Second--there are energy conditions that may prove to be broken down by quantum gravity effects.
We learn about singularities by studying the space-time around them. To touch a singularity and try to extend it to its function in space time--you would just reduce it to a single point--its beginning and end. God is outside of time remember, and for Him--well the beginning and the end have come.
Dealing with malicious singularities is also a problem and so freakin far over my head. But, it still does not give us an answer as to the original singularity. Quantum physics doesn't explain away or support the concept of creation, it has yet top do it. It just keeps evolving new conceptual theories. Many not empirically verified. Like the big black hole in the middle that pulls all matter in.
We can interpret these theories--but an understanding of God should be considered. Outside time and space--then you start feeling your head ready to explode.
You can have anything you want as a theory to what is outside the model, but given that we an explanation in God. . . it is not such a leap to consider Him. :)
Evolution coming soon to a theatre near you. . .
Anyone reading this please remember these are my thoughts. . . not a dare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Geisha,
You and I are two liberal arts majors groping in the dark it would appear. ARE THERE ANY GRADUATE LEVEL (OR ABOVE) PHYSICS MAJORS OUT THERE? Your help would here would be greatly appreciated.
As the problem with time and black holes etcetera, I really don't see a problem. I agree with those philosophers who see time as a provisional entity which does not exist apart from human mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi,
Oh my Gosh--you are NOT kidding! I knew someone who would talk to me for HOURS about this stuff. He would only stop when my eyes glazed over. He gave me books which I loved, but took me forever to read. But the bottom line is--you give me another explanation, I say mine. Which carries more scientific weight? I say prove yours--you say prove mine. The big bang theory bothers atheists. It means a cause. Most don't argue other theories with quantum physics because there are too many ifs, they argue we don't know what caused the big bang. I say I do ---This sends the atheists screaming for the hills. The word arrogant seems to pop up as well. But, I always say the big bang is consistent with the creation story of the bible--I never say it proves it.
Anyway--the Anthropic Principle is 100 constants--I know the arguments--Nature Vs. Intellegence, but there has to come a time that you look at this and wonder--
right?
God is confirmed to me everyday--when I use words like awesome-amazing-incredible--it is because I have seen Him in His design--just talking about this stuff should make one pause and wonder about the idea of God. How big must He be--How able? To consider hurts no one.
Now, do you know something about time the rest of us are missing? :) Didn't you just put forth the idea of singularities?? Beginning points? Oenophile, let me in on this one--please--- because NOW (Old enough to know better, young enough to still care). . . is a good time to stop my clock. I noticed a few lines under my eyes and I don't LIKE it!
Are you aging?
Time is a reality--imposed on us for a purpose. That is what I believe. However I believe God is outside of time and eternal.
I am much more comfortable discussing macroevolution with you. I will get back to you. My brain needs recovery from even considering again quantum physics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Oenophile,
Just wanted to touch on this a bit more before work. First, Kant?? You read Kant? I love it!!! :) That is where I really learned about the preconcieved notions we ALL approach an issue with. That is why I make an effort to hear exactly what someones argument is--and try to approach it as if will not bite me. WOW!! I don't know why, but I love that you used that example!!
Second, you are my senior--who knew--but you understood my point--we change at a cellular level because of the passage of time. Quantum Physics is about
Time-Space. Time is a reality--but I do get where you are coming from. We could have some pretty fun conversations--but alas--time gets in the way. :)
Third--I don't care what Gould thinks--what do you think of the Anthropic Principle? Even Dawkins deals with it. The mathematics are not in the atheists favor, they
explain it differently, but most do not dismiss it out of hand. In fact, it was enough to shake atheist atronomer Fred Hoyle into admitting some kind of "Super Intellegence."
Hugh Ross an astrophysicist (Don't ask me to check his math) calculated the probability that these 122 constants would exist for any other planet in the universe by chance. 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Big number lots of zeros----better odds winning the lottery.
Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias--who codiscovered radiation after-glow said: Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern
science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.
Ed Harris a cosmologist said it was "prima facie evidence of deistic design"
Many atheists when presented with this evidence will admit some kind of designer--others cling doggedly to the idea of chance. How with a straight face I don't get.
That is when the multiple universe theory usually rears its head. In other words by chance we hit the right universe. There is no evidence for this theory--but hey, it is another explantion. What ever happened to Occam's Razor? If there are a limited number of things--finite--how can there be unlimited universes? Remember-matter defined yadayada. Besides the need for a designer is still there--multiple times--we always come back to the static.
God tells us to look to the heavens--they scream out infinity--He is infinity--our minds have a hard time comprehending this--
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities have have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
I so get that! I could go on and on. . . . who would have thunk it right, I love this stuff. Don't take Goulds evaluation, he may have had an axe to grind--look at the 122 constants yourself. Quite a list--
I hope you have a wonderful day!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I was trying to avoid responding to you because of your arrogance and bitterness in previous posts, but it is dishonest of you to attribute ideas to people that you clearly know nothing about. As one of the atheists on this site, I can tell you that it doesn't bother me at all. Just because you believe the big bang was caused by God, Jesus, Buddha, FSM, or whatever doesn't mean everyone has to believe it. You have every right to believe whatever you want, but when you start telling others what they believe, especially when it's not true, you cross the line.
Atheism and agnosticism is an honest expression that we don't know everything, and won't make up answers or believe things without proof. Many religious people feel as you do, and that is fine. We think you are wrong, but most of us respect the views of religious folks. That is far different than "screaming for the hills", it's just that we don't wish to debate religion with you, especially when you mix it with science.
Actually it's not consistent, unless you can somehow prove that there were whales, birds, and humans within six days of the big bang.
Not everyone wonders and comes up with the same ideas you do. There seems to be a certain sense of entitlement amongst the offshoots of Judaism (Christianity and Islam) that everyone has to believe the same thing, or that the concepts of their religions are somehow natural and intuitive. Many people will look at the universe and attribute it to natural processes we can't understand and nothing more. Others will attribute it to Zeus or the titans. There are infinite possibilities of what people can believe in, so I don't think it's necessarily true that people will lean towards intelligent design, especially the more educated they become.
No more than it hurts people to consider the idea that there is no supernatural presence, and that the things that are "wrong" with the universe are because there is no supernatural designer. Seriously, couldn't you come up with ways to improve upon what you determine to be "creation"? If I were the creator of the universe, I probably would have left out things like Down's Syndrome and Sickle Cell Anemia, for one thing. I would have made the transition from life to afterlife a less bitter thing as to not torture those left behind when someone passes away. I would have never given mankind the ability to make things like nuclear missles or cluster bombs with the ability to kill millions remotely. I wouldn't have created the capability for people like Adolf Hitler, Usama bin Laden, or L. Craig Martindale to have been born and ruin the lives of so many. There are many, many, things that are bad, and if you attribute all the good things to your gods, then you have to look at the bad too. Even if you believe in a devil, if your infinitely powerful god created that devil, then you have to ask why he would do it.
So again, I think you've made up your mind, and that's fine for you. Just don't expect the rest of us to agree with you, and you certainly have no right to speak on behalf of others and attribute beliefs to people you disagree with incorrectly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Mr P-Mosh
I owe you a great big apology--I did sound a bit bitter to say the least. Did you ever have one of those days where it seems the bad news will not quit? Well, I had a couple of those weeks recently.
I spend alot of time dealing with issues regarding the persecuted church. I got sad news after sad news and it built up for me. So, I was less than gracious with your posts. I am sorry.
In this country I can read the bible and go to church freely. There are many countries where people are not so lucky. It is those people I like to write to and send to their needs when I can. When they are imprisioned for simply owning a bible or having a church--it is sad--they are seperated from their families and often beaten, sometimes tortured and yes, even killed. All for a simple faith in God. It is an irrational fear that causes such a reaction.
Your belief or lack of belief in the God of the bible doesn't bother me at all. However, when you tell me I can't say or do something that does bother me. I base my ideas and posts on experience with atheists. And BTW--a very sweet friend of mine--whom I have shared a great deal with is a devout atheist. A psychologist who hates to hear people talk!LOL :)
My response to you was at the end of a few horrible weeks--if you would see fit to accept my apology I would appreciate it.
My Best,
Geisha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/blunder.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
geisha,
Don't worry about it, and realistically I don't think you said anything any worse than I did, so if you owe me an apology I owe one in response. Topics like the ones we've discussed here enter into the realm of core beliefs of people and things that are important to us, so there's no doubt that discussion and debate can get heated. So don't worry about it, and I'll also try to remain civil from here on out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.