Hmmm, interesting, Polycarp.
While on these boards it is almost taken for granted that it is a good thing to compare religions and understand as much as one can, this can be at odds with some understandings of evangelical Christianity. To learn of other religions is to learn that which is untrue, but the evangelical Christian is to devote himself to learning the truth, which to them is the Bible. Learning about other religions is at best mental exercise, but it could be spiritually harmful and lead someone astray. Many have said that one does not need to know untruth (in that context, everything but their version of Christianity) to know truth (their version of Christianity).
Polycarp, while the other two interpretations are most definitely at odds with a Christian understanding of the texts, how is a Christian understanding at odds with the above interpretation of the above verses? Could the above verses support an understanding that Christianity requires that we observe the Sabbath on Saturday?
(By the way, Polycarp, were you speaking of Jerry Vines in another post when referring to Kenneth Vines?)
I’ve just never managed to understand why somebody would believe that the Bible is True and that all other religious texts are untrue without even having basic knowledge of any other religious texts. I’ve had discussions with “reasonable” Christians (i.e. non-fundamentalists) about why they’ve decided that the Bible is superior to the Sutras or the Koran or whatever, and the typical response from them is that the Bible doesn’t have a monopoly on the Truth, it’s just that the Bible is written in such a way that they personally can get the best grasp of the Truth through its study instead of through the study of other religious texts (since they more readily understand its language and context, f’rinstace). Fine, I can accept that – they’re not claiming something to be self-evident (like the Bible’s supposedly inherent superiority) that is, in fact, not self-evident at all. However, in similar discussions with fundamentalists, their justifications are always either “Clearly the Bible is the Truth because God says so,” and/or “You, loinburger, are clearly an evil and/or stupid person for doubting that the Bible is the Truth, and I will pray for your soul.” Or, like His4ever, they’ll just ignore the question. How does the fundamentalist know that they have a monopoly on the Truth?
Mix a healthy dose of brainwashing with a pinch of fear, season with authority to taste?
My random guess is that knowing “the Truth” as derived by means of logic doesn’t matter as much to the Christian fundamentalist as knowing “the Truth” as derived by means of experience and authority. Please note that I’m not qualitatively comparing the two means of knowledge, merely that that’s my observation.
QUOTE:
"The debate:
Why is it necessary to consider the Bible to be an inerrant document worthy of uncritical acceptance and having a broad application (to science as well as to personal ethics)?
Why is it not acceptable to consider that (for example) The fallible, human writers were inspired by God, but introduced their own fallible, human slant (personal, cultural and possibly other factors too) to the writings?"
Because to the fundamental/evangelical Christian the Bible is God, and God can not be fallible. While they will denigh this in one breath, in another breath they will tell you, if it is not in the Bible it is not of God.
When I, or others, talked about our spiritual experiences we always heard that’s not in the Bible routine. I have yet to see a fundamental talk about God outside of the Bible. When the discussions started about God being unconditional love, over and over quotes from the Bible were presented to contradict.
It’s all they know, no thinking allowed, Bible is God.
In the beginning was the word.
Fear limits, love frees.
Those who don’t look upon the Bible as God have a more relaxed perspective. They can choose what they like and leave the rest.
Love
Leroy
Heck, that one’s easy, loinburger. Folks such as that prefer bigotry to thinking.
Bigotry is not the defining point, I think.
The refusal or fear of thinking is.
The bigotry only follows naturally from ignorance.
I agree, Latro. That’s my point: such folks delight in their ignorance and thus in its consequence.
Monty, I don’t think it’s bigotry so much as it is easiness. Look, people hang out on this message board in general and in this forum because we like and enjoy thinking. It comes easily to us, and a life without the pleasure of thought provoking conversation would be much duller and poorer.
I’d be willing to bet most people aren’t like us. Thinking doesn’t necessarily come easy to other people, and questioning things, especially questioning important things is frightening. Think about the debates we have here on religion alone. How many people in your church would you have these discussions with? I can think of a few at my old church, but not all that many, and my church is half engineers.
I suspect there are a lot of people who go to church because that’s what you’re supposed to do in American society and because it’s good for the kids. One is supposed to be a Christian for the same reason one is supposed to be a heterosexual – because it fits society’s definition of normal.
His4Ever, while I’m far from a Christian scholar, I have studied Buddhism. I’ve even meditated in Zen Buddhist fashion in a Buddhist monastery on Mount Koya in Japan. I continue to use Zen-style meditation as a form of deep prayer. My study of and exposure to Buddhism has deepened and enriched my relationship with Christ, rather than damaging it.
As others have said, we’re not trying to damage your faith. We’re trying to get you to be a more effective witness, at least in this one place. I’ll also admit to trying to strengthen it, if anything. It’s not that I’m assuming your faith isn’t strong. If anyone around here has faith which can move mountains, it’s you. It’s just that, as an engineer’s daughter, I’m aware that if something exists without support, it’s a more fragile structure. That applies to faith as well as bridges. Thinking about what it says in the Bible and trying to understand it gives people something else to hang on to when they run across something in the Bible or in life which they just can’t reconcile with themselves. It provides an alternative to “Either the entire Bible is [literally] true or none of it’s true” thinking. Since the Bible does contradict itself, that’s vital, at least in my humble opinion.
CJ
His4Ever wrote:
I pray that I am witnessing the growth of a Sister in Christ, much like Simon’s growth when he became Peter.
I’m soory but I must agree with H4E’s assesment that ‘If part of it’s false, then all of it’s false.’
That is the logical conclusion.
Why twist in all kinds of knots, trying to read a hidden intention into a fallible bible? If the J-C God really existed, the bible would be his word. Not some kind of silly puzzle or free will test.
Now, in this forum it has repeatedly been shown that the bible is incorrect at some points and often contradicts itself.
‘Aha, God is trying to trick me!’ is not the logical next step, I would say.
‘The bible is not the truth as handed down by God.’ would be a more reasonable conclusion.
‘Does this J-C God really exist at all?’ Would be a viable next question.
If you do not believe that the bible is the ultimate truth what reason is there to continue the belief?
Such a black/white view of things seems completely absurd to me; the Bible being [absolutely true and infallible] or [completely false and worthless] are merely the extremes of the scale.
That’s not to imply that, when faced with a continuum of grey bounded by black and white, that the truth cannot inhabit one of the extremes; consider:
Person A: “Three plus three equals four”
Persons B, C and D: “Three plus three equals five”
Person E: “Three plus three equals six”
It’s tempting for liberals to strike out for the safe, popular middle ground, but in the example above, the extreme is true.
In the particular case of the Bible though, I believe that there is little or no evidence to suggest that it is a piece of infallible divine dictation, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the authors introduced their own slant to what they were writing, but independent personal experience also leads me to believe that there are elements of useful truth in there.
Latro, with respect, this is nonsense
How can you possible say that the logical conclusion is that, "if part of it’s false, then all of it’s false”? There are other obvious logical possibilities.
If the bible contains even one statement which can be shown to be true – and it does – the you cannot say that all of it is false. The logic of your position, if you adhere to it, is that, once it can be shown that the bible contains even one true statement, you must accept that no part of the bible is false. (Alternatively, you must abandon your position.)
And, if the bible contains at least one statement which can be shown to be true, and at least one statement which can be shown to be not true, where does that leave your “logical conclusion”?
Ofcourse there are elements of truth in there and things of use.
The authors weren’t exactly lying their guts out, most of it was written with good intentions, probably.
It just isn’t the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
But there is no other way than black or white concerning if it is the word of God. It either is or it isn’t.
This statement is correct. However, there is no logical, external method to determine which it is. Claims that if it were God’s word he’d have made it consistent and easily understood presume that God wants to convey a specific message in a specific way.
It is quite possible to view the works as having been written and collected under the inspiration of God without presuming to know what God’s intentions had been.
The only thing that one can determine by the texts is that there are inconsistent and contradictory passages. Neither of these facts provides clear rebuttal to the idea that God wanted to express himself in that way.
Certainly there is no such thing as 99% infallible.
Ah, but then you haven’t met my wife Mange! 
Just to clarify, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but it was written and has been translated by mortal, fallible human beings. It was written over a period of perhaps thousands of years and contains a variety of literature, from history to love poems (Song of Solomon), to apocalyptic literature (some of Daniel, as well as Revelations. I do not fully understand it, nor do I expect to in this lifetime. One of the things I look forward to in heaven is saying “Ooh! So that’s what that meant!” Human beings do tend to go astray in interpreting what the Bible says. that was one of the points of Christ’s ministry – to get us to look at the spirit and intent of the Law, rather than the letter of it. He also instructed us to love God “with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (emphasis mine) which to me requires that we think about Scripture, rather than merely repeat it.
Then again, I’m just a renegade Episcopalian who does Buddhist style meditation and runs with Wiccans. I also freely admit there are parts of my beliefs which I haven’t fully thought out, although you folks are eating away at them. My beliefs may be heretical, foolish, or just plain wrong. If so, I’ll accept the consequences.
CJ
Uh, don’t get too happy. I just made the comment that Polycarp’s post was interesting so as not to rouse more arguing. Personally, and this is my opinion; I don’t see how a person can be a Christian Buddhist. How can you reconcile all the religions in the world? They can’t all be right. Buddhism may indeed have some wonderful teachings about love etc. but it’s only Jesus Christ who saves, not Buddha as good as he perhaps was. It’s Jesus who is the Saviour and God in the flesh. There’s no one beside Him or above him imho. So sometimes to get out of the debate or argument I simply make comments and say that’s interesting or something like that. There’s a great diversity of belief here and I must respect that but I haven’t changed mine one iota. Just trying to be nice. Sorry to disappoint you, Libertarian!