But it’s not.
Maybe they read their Catechism:
Only when you present your opinion as a fact.
Not sure. I know a lot of liberal Christians who believe in the divinity of Jesus, who will bend over backwards to call the Bible bullshit rather than admit it tells them they should do something they don’t want to do. I just like to know who I’m arguing with. Do you believe Jesus is God and that he rose from the dead?
I would call those denial of what was falsely presented as facts.
Speaking of changing the subject, you avoided my question. Do you think most likely Jesus died and didn’t rise again? You said you were more Buddhist than Christian, so maybe you think he was reincarnated? Just say what you think, and admit or deny your woo woo.
Pretty much one in the same, and I have no doubt it makes you feel better about your beliefs. Maybe it’s just a level of intelligence type thing, and you IQ somewhat determines how clear of indoctrination a person can break free.
Oh, here’s a cite: The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans - ScienceDirect
So I’m skimming though the Catechism of the Catholic Church and came across this little gem:
So how long has the Catholic Church preached inerrancy?
If this site is correct, a very, very long time. It says that some Catholic theologians have claimed that, in its original autograph version, the Bible is inerrant—without error. This appears to be the consensus of popes, of most of the Catholic scholars and of the other church leaders until the mid 20th century.
At one time autographed originals existed? Wow, news to me. And they were inerrant too? So I’m told. I’m only guessing that some higher critics today that say the literalist or inerrant movement is a recent modern development have a different meaning in mind. Perhaps they are probably thinking of a very small minority of ultra-conservative Christians that insist their bibles of today (mostly KJV) are also without error and contradiction, not even a spelling or grammar error, and I’ve found a few like that, but not many.
And then you’ve got Catholics of old who had that whole church is infallible thing going on in the day. Since 99% of the world was illiterate in Christianity’s beginnings, and a good part of its history, it only matters what the church said it was to mean. They also realized that when people starting reading for themselves, that it often led to heresy. And they were opposed to new translations. The Roman Church has never erred, nor will it err to all eternity. No one may be considered a Catholic Christian who does not agree with the Catholic Church. No book is authoritative unless it has received the papal sanction…. Dictatus Papae (The Dictates of the Pope)
The best I can make out, when a religious person says the bible is inerrant or the church is infallible, it really doesn’t mean what it says, and requires pages and pages of explanation of what they are really saying. It would probably be best if they just dropped those words altogether, and I think it would clear up things a lot quicker with a lot less words used.
Pages of explanation? Really?
In my uneducated experience, “inerrant in the original autographs” means that the Bible says exactly waht God wanted to say, in exactly the way He wanted it to be said, in the original version. Translation errors, imprecisions, and misinterpretations are to be expected as these were done by humans.
The Church is “infallible” in that, in the case of a question of interpretation of doctrine, the interpretation endorsed by the Church is the one right interpretation for all Catholics. Rather like binding by-laws in a club.
I hear a lot of that now even among fundamentalists. Of course it’s a completely faith based assumption as no autographs exist.
(shrug) **razncain **was looking for definitions of terms, not judgments on accuracy.
OK, but there are no agreed upon terms. My observation is that you Christians (liberals and fundamentalists) like to claim as much accuracy as possible in your Bible from the start, then back away from it as needed when challenged. It’s a fairly obvious ploy.
Those are two brief explanations and good ones, for inerrancy and infallibility, and I could just as easily use a dictionary for what I would mean by it, but, there isn’t a particular flag that Christians will fly of the same color when it comes to determining what those terms means. One size doesn’t fit all as that link demonstrates. It provides various forms of inerrancy and what it means to different people. It says the Catholics have conflicting views on biblical inerrancy and gives us three samples: Absolute inerrancy, Limited inerrancy, and No inerrancy. It then goes on to show various scholars and earlier church father of how they used the term.
It then has a link that shows what conservative Christians generally mean by that term. And yet another link of what is meant by that when mainline, liberal and more progressive Christians use it. And I doubt that this actually covers all of the samples of how Christians interpret inerrancy. I’m sure a book could be written about it, and it would still be incomplete.
Concerning these autographed originals, are there that many Christians accepting of such a thing besides maybe some on the conservative side? Any higher critics you can think of?
Accepting of what thing, that there is such a thing as divine inspiration but it always loses in translation, or that the first time someone put any of what’s currently any of the books of the Bible in writing, it was a perfect writing?
I really don’t understand what do you mean when you say “such a thing”.
Why is that fundamentalism being a more recent phenomenon would make me feel better?
Do atheists who are not anti-religious feel better because the New Atheism is a recent phenomenon?
Oh, and they are not autographed copies. “Autograph” is the term for the original document that scripture was derived from. Given that none of these documents have actually survived, it is legitimate to question whether the Bible as we have it today qualifies for inerrancy.
I can’t speak for you personally, however my hypothesis is that Christians in general are continually having the things they held as true disproved by by science. Liberal Christians gradually accept these changes but they know they are, over time, retreating as science advances. So it’s more complementary to them to think that they never believed such foolishness as a 6000 year old earth from the start.
I don’t think atheists suffer the insecurity of continually retreating to science over the centuries like Christians do, rather science generally vindicates us.
But I never did believe the earth was only 6000 years old, nor did anyone I know. Including my great-aunts and cousins who were/are RC priests and nuns.
Your hypothesis–that your many liberal Christian acquaintances who are not fundamentalists are lying to save face–makes no sense to me.
Do you think I am likely to (or maybe should) feel ashamed because other members of Christian churches believed or now believe this? or because it was taught or implied by one church or another?
if so, do you think that mainstream geologists and paleontologists feel ashamed because some paleontologists believed stegosaurus had a brain in its butt or because of the existence of so called “creation scientists” ?
Some large-scale miracles would inevitably have left physical traces. That’s how we know there was no flood.
Other small-scale miracles wouldn’t necessarily leave traces. There isn’t any way to disprove the resurrection, at this time. We don’t even know for sure that we’re looking at the right cave. Meanwhile, who knows: the body might turn up some day.
It’s far more foolish to believe in a miracle that has been fully disproven than in one that can’t effectively be disproven.
Belief in any miracle may be foolish, but folly comes on a spectrum, and some beliefs are more foolish than others. My friend who believes God talks to her is less of a fool than the creationist who believes all animals on earth today descended from Noah’s Ark.
Attempting to equate these things is logically improper.
The hell? What exactly does that have to do with the OP?
How does this not answer your original question? Or are you a black and white thinker that does not accept the idea of degrees of belief? Your posts are puzzling. Do you think this thread is really about the divinity of Jesus or what?
Nice catch in post #124 btw. Highly topical. But I’m getting the sense that you have some other agenda as you haven’t shown much interest in exploring that in greater depth. I’m not familiar with your posting history so I can only guess roughly what it is. Again though, the Catholic church never showed much interest in dealing with the obvious conflicts within the gospels, so it’s pretty easy to interpret their claims of inerrancy as so much salesmanship and showmanship. Less so with modern fundamentalists. But there is grist for weighing evidence here.
I was curious if there are any higher critics that would accept such a thing as there actually being original books, that they also considered inerrant.
I’m sure you’re using it in the more correct sense of the word, especially the way scholars would use it. Thanks for the correction.
Do you think it’s also legitimate to question why many would think these supposed original documents were inerrant, and that God in all his perfectness played a hand in it, but let things get lost in later translations?
In other words, I’m right. You are just a literalist fundamentalist, who thinks he’s a genius, and an expert on Christianity, just like they do. You just happen to occupy the same atheist space as me, because you took the 0% side of the fundy formula. But you don’t occupy the same rational or intellectual space as I do. You are not interested in learning about any of this. You are only interested, as are all literalist fundies, in defending your fundy formula, no matter how much Orwellian doublethink it takes. If you ever wish to learn what the majority of Christians think about this shit, I can give you a reading list that will take you about 6 months to slog through, but if you manage it, you’ll understand it. You’ll probably also reject it, as I do, but at least you’ll understand what you’re rejecting. As it stands now, you might as well go run over to a fundy forum and argue with them. They are the only ones you are actually qualified to argue with, if ‘winning’ is your goal. Now I really am done with you. Get back to me if you want that reading list. Otherwise, continue to keep hunting those billygoats.
Certainly. I think the answer from inerrancy fans is related to free will, or human imperfection.