Is Bible inerrant

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by yip1997, Dec 7, 2007.

  1. Turok

    Turok

    zTroll:
    >Like Einstein could explain his theories to his infant
    >children so that they would truly understand at
    >his level...

    Like "God" is anything like Einstein.

    LOL -- what a putz the zTroll is, comparing God's teaching capabilities to a simple human being.

    >Quite seriously, you really do have a God
    >complex...in so many ways.

    Quite seriously, you really are a total idiot ... in so many ways.

    JB
     
    #291     Dec 18, 2007
  2. Maybe. Not surely.
     
    #292     Dec 18, 2007

  3. Actually, what I was concerned about was the fact that he didn't do his research. For example, I went for a couple of semesters to a small, charistmatic Bible College in the middle of nowhere. And, even in this school, they discussed inerrancy and infalliblity.

    I'm not sure why, but I find it disturbing that you would claim to be a skeptic and a Christian and not really understand either position. Again, not sure what bothers me about it...
     
    #293     Dec 18, 2007
  4. Johnny,

    If you could take off your Rev Moon mask for just a minute and be JohnnyK again, I wouldn't mind dialoguing. But what happens now is I respond with one or two sentences and you write back forty three sentences of gnostic, New Age mantras.

    If I wanted that, I could just go to Barnes and Noble and buy about any of a hundred books there...
     
    #294     Dec 18, 2007
  5. Well I suppose there's going to be private interpretation whether it's allowed or not. When you think of it, how can there not be private interpretation when everybody sees everything from his own unique perspective? There are as many versions of God as there are people - more actually because people's moods change and their attitudes to God or their perceptions of God can change. If you were to walk into any church or synagogue or whatever if you dug deep enough and got past the dogma you'd find as many Gods in that place of worship as there were people.

    Same goes for atheist and agnostics since they must have some concept of God they're against or can't decide about.
     
    #295     Dec 18, 2007
  6. Actually, Jesus' and Paul's teaching were both quite involved and quite developed. They certainly cannot imo be rejected as "stoneage attempts". Of course, I recognize that there are many reasons that someone would reject Christianity. But I cannot see how it would be because it was "stoneage"...
     
    #296     Dec 18, 2007
  7. No.
     
    #297     Dec 18, 2007
  8. Jesus and Paul are of the New Testament; I don't know what their connection might be to Genesis, other that they appear in the same collection of books (Bible).

    Before the One God concept came along most religions were based on Fate as the determining factor in our lives. Christianity places the responsibility for the self squarely on the self; this represented a huge advance in the importance of free will and the status of the common individual.

    If anything Judeo-Christian theology provided us with a means to advance out of religious primitivism.

    The Greeks were odd. They were so advanced politically, scientifically, and philosophically but had what must be about the silliest religious concepts ever construed.
     
    #298     Dec 18, 2007
  9. Which Greeks? The ones in Toronto and Melbourne?
     
    #299     Dec 18, 2007
  10. The ones in breastplates and sandals.
     
    #300     Dec 18, 2007