Errancy
Posted: 26 October 2006 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

A priest @Exploring Faith states that the two accounts of creation bespeak not of inerrancy but of God’s creative act. But I find that the compilers probaly thought they could reconcile the accounts as fundamentalists think.  What are the errantists’ metaphors for the irrational Deluge ,slavery and genocides?  We need to go after errancy as Richard Dawkins does in "The God Delusion .’ He shows their theistic evolution is null . Whle not dangerous as some fundamentalists are, errantists shouls face the facts ; they are as faith -based as the inerrantists. And they are obffuscators.  :idea:  :!:

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2007 04:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

8) Gee , no one wants to fault errantists ? With Dawkins and Harris , I find that they have no valid reason for their belief, They rationally cherry pick from the Bible ,but what is left is nothing that one cannot get elsewhere and the idea of the Atonement is still barbaric . What have they to offer that is all that good ? :wink:

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2007 05:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11

Yeah, atonement is a joke.

We evolved and there were no Adam and Eve, no fall from grace, therefore no need for Jesus.

Period.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2007 05:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

raspberry Amen ! :D

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2007 08:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

What is left of the Bible is according to errantists is salvation.But that is still the divine protection rackett, even for their mushy Hell.

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2007 07:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2007-08-18
skeptic griggsy - 29 March 2007 04:39 PM

8) Gee , no one wants to fault errantists ? With Dawkins and Harris , I find that they have no valid reason for their belief, They rationally cherry pick from the Bible ,but what is left is nothing that one cannot get elsewhere and the idea of the Atonement is still barbaric . What have they to offer that is all that good ? :wink:

Hello:

This message is about the errancy of the Bible and the reason for it being errant.

Although there are many varieties of Christianity, it seems legitimate to say that a tenet of most of the varieties of Christianity is the belief that all of the Bible (Old plus New Testament) is the word of a deity called God who is alleged to have commanded people to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” It does not seem to occur to the adherents of Christianity that it is a logical contradiction to claim that the Bible consists only of the word of God, and to also claim that God commanded people to “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

This logical contradiction is admittedly not immediately apparent; so it will now be shown in a step-by-step manner. As a first step, another and greater commandment, which was allegedly also made by God, reads, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” The commandment to “Love your neighbor as yourself” is specified to be like it. Given that were to be true, one of the consequences of that similarity would be that the phrase “Love your neighbor” would be similar to the phrase “love the Lord thy God”. From this similarity, it would be seen that the first and foremost “neighbor” of humanity would be “the Lord thy God”. It would logically follow that if God were a neighbor of humanity, then humanity would be a neighbor of God. Given that this were to be the situation, it would logically follow that if and when God were to preserve His words in books, then He would also preserve the words of His neighbor, humanity, in those very same books. God would do this because doing this would be to love His neighbor, humanity, as He loves Himself. If God were to preserve the words of humanity in the same books in which He were to preserve His own words, then it would be a logical contradiction to say that the Bible is only the word of God. It would instead logically be correct to say that the Bible is the word of God plus the word of humanity.

Some people might be tempted to say that this reasoning is merely logic and therefore inapplicable to a divinity. If that allegation were to be made, then it would be appropriate to mention that the Bible itself admits that it contains the word of humanity in addition to the word of God. This admission was made at Matthew 13:33 and again at Luke 13:21. To save time, the King James Version (KJV) of Matthew 13:33 reads, “Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” Luke 13:21 is similar and the KJV of it reads, “It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” Their commonality reads, “Is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” Given that this admission is true, then it logically follows that “leaven” has been hidden in every book of the Bible (“the whole was leavened”). Given that this were the situation, then it seems logical that Christianity would be divided into at least as many segments as it is.

Given that the words of the Christian deity were to be in the Bible along with the words of humanity, and given that the Christian deity were to be as just and merciful as claimed, then it would logically follow that the Christian deity would have provided a method to establish which words were whose. Considering the fact that most Christians have not yet realized that they have a need to establish which words are whose, it logically follows that most of them have not yet looked to see if there is such a way in the Bible.

If the most of Christians were nevertheless to look, then they would find that a way to establish which words were whose has indeed been provided. Of course, given that there were to be such a way, then it would logically be, that the way to establish which words were whose, would not appear to be what it were, otherwise it would have been noticed long before now. For instance, the first occurrence of the “leaven discovery tool” (to coin a phrase) is at Deuteronomy 19:15 which reads (KJV), “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” This verse is admittedly not a clear instance of anything which even remotely resembles the alleged “leaven discovery tool”. And the situation does not get much better with the next occurrence of it which is at Matthew 18:16 and which reads (KJV), “But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” In fact, it’s not until the third occurrence that the “leaven discovery tool” shows even a hint of its true nature. The third occurrence is at 2 Corinthians 13:1 and it reads (KJV), “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” Although a faint glimmer is seen in this third verse, it’s the commonality of these three verses which more clearly shows the “leaven discovery tool”. The commonality reads, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” A contemplation of this commonality leads to the discovery that it is a method by which the words of God could be established to be the words of God instead of being the words of humanity.

Although this idea seems possible in theory, does it work in practice? This method of establishing which words are the words of God was used in the first four books of the Christian New Testament. The results are available for inspection at http://greatriddle.flifree.com

Thank you for your attention to this topic.

 Signature 

Being a heretic is not automatically being wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2009 03:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

Keith Ward, a high level theologian, wants others to believe that our atheistic attack on the Bible is fundamentalistic when we argue against the hard parts and the contradictions. He argues that we are perfectionistic in portraying Yahweh’s character as evil [Dawkins has Yahweh’s number!].This is errant nonsense!
    We take the execrable book in context, He argues that everyone cherry picks from the book [ Wlater Kufmann, atheologian, adumbrates that.].
    He argues that the book demands that society take care of the poor.He uses that sophism that we are perfectionistic in demanding that He should have denounced slavery.
    That reflects theologians’ rationalizing about God.
      Faith does that to people!
      Farvel.

[ Edited: 13 February 2009 03:45 AM by Carneades [ lord griggs1947] ]
Image Attachments
morgansid.jpg
 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2009 03:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2008-11-28

Although there are many varieties of Christianity, it seems legitimate to say that a tenet of most of the varieties of Christianity is the belief that all of the Bible (Old plus New Testament) is the word of a deity called God

I’m not sure that this is the belief of even the majority of Christians, although I would allow that it is the belief of the vocal minority in the US. 

I remember the chaplain where I went to school liked to tell a story about his 1st day at seminary.  Seems the instructor of his 1st class walked in holding a bible in the air, and asking who in the class believed it was the word of God.  After all the seminary students had answered in the affirmative, the instructor pointedly let the bible drop to the floor (imagine the shock!).  He closed with the admonition that it was written by men. 

I would suggest that the majority view among Christians is that the bible was “inspired” by God.

 Signature 

“He was guilty then of thinking, a crime much worse than all” - Mason Proffit

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2010 12:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

Bishop John Shelby Spong as with us rationalists notes the false history, the impossible miracles and other matters, but finds that the Tanakh and the Testament testify nevertheless to God:. Then why not other revelations?  Why this ethnocentrism as Richard H. Schlagel asks in ” The Vanquished Gods: Science, Religion and the Nature of Belief?”
  His shield of faith [Articulett] has him to find an excuse for being a Christian as he so admires Yeshua, that cult leader, that he finds salvation in those two anthologies. Incllusivists ,like John Hick, find that all religions point to the same reality.Yes, to mumbo-jumbo!
  Just what are those good metaphors that Fr. Leo Booth and Spong find in the hard parts of those two anthologies? John Haught alleges that the message of the two is hope: so that is the metaphor for those hard parts!
  What is the good metaphor for Yahweh’s hardening Pharoah’s heart when that adds to the misery of the Hebrews and——-to the Egyptians themselves?
  This illustrates why I find errancy as laughable as inerrancy!
  Why go to any putative revelation when we have a better moral guide, that of humanism?
  How otherwise do errantists make us rationalists laugh?
How might they yet defend errancy from us rationalists? They arrogantly contemn our pointing out the biblical nonsense as fundamentalistic, when they cannot defend their own fundamentalism, that of what is left for them to accept of those anthologies.
  Yes, those writers weren’t indeed writing science as they had no understanding of it; they believed in magic!
  Not only do these anthologies not tell us of how the heavens go, they cannot tell us how to get to Heaven as it doesn’t exist, just another fable by those pahtological men of yore.
  Errantists can dismiss Yeshua’s love to talk about Hell as that is mainly a view of Matthew., and no one really knows what he said. That is why they can overlook his other irrational sayings. They rationally cherry   pick then. Yet where he might make sense, that others noted eons before his birth. He adds no wonderful insights at all! He is quite dead and never God, just another man-god and miracle monger, a man of his times and morality.
  Errantists ever confirm what the great stylist and philosopher William Kaufmann notes that they read onto those anthologies and him their own ideas. See his ” Faith of a Heretic” and ’ Critique of Philosophy and Religion.”

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2010 03:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
Carneades [ lord griggs1947] - 20 January 2010 12:34 AM

Bishop J
  This illustrates why I find errancy as laughable as inerrancy!
....

http://www.dtl.org/calvinism/article/wright/inerrancy-1.htm

Can you explain again what you mean by “errancy” in “inerrancy” or give links.

The doctrine of inerrancy states that the Bible is free from error

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2010 07:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  45
Joined  2009-05-26

Good evening,

I haven’t posted in a while and the more I read the more stupid I feel. Good thing I’ve got my beer here. - I love these threads, especially if they deal with Christian questions. I mean real questions. - I am a Christian, more or less, but the word “Christian” itself has in many places a bad ring to it now, meaning a fundamentalist one. Anyway…

Yes and no, that most Christians believe in the “inerrancy” of the Bible. The idea of the “inerrancy” of the Bible is a pretty new one. Christians do believe… all Christians believe… that the Bible (Old and New Testament) are the “Word of God”. How that is seen though varies very much. - The Christian faith itself is not based on the Bible. The Bible is a reflection of early Christian beliefs later “codified” but the faith itself is well working without Bible. Anything else is just innovation, no matter how loud they scream.

Regarding “inerrancy” though the “official” statement, at least of the Confessing Evangelicals, is called the “Chicago Statement on Inerrancy”. But don’t confuse the “Confessing Evangelicals” with any other “confessing Evangelicals”. ... There’s just too much of this stuff out there…

Peace.

 Signature 

“In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.” (Heinrich Heine)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2011 04:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

Some Christians are inclusivists and find other religions and their scriptures just another vehicle for His message.
  Now, for the rest why would theirs be more worth of belief? That it proffers Yeshua as their saviour?  That begs the question.
  After noting the faults of their scriptures, errantists still find that whilst they don’t describe how the heavens go but rather how to get to Heaven; but where is the non-scriptural evidence for Heaven and Hell and nirvana and reincarnation?
  It seems that those believers find meaning in the meaninglessness of those scriptures! They interpret them as William Kaufmann notes after their own beliefs. Pat Robertson believes in a vicious god, because that is how he wants God to act whilst Jim Wallis has a nicer one, because Wallis has a better picture of reality.
  We gnu atheists have the best picture as we find that either probably no God exists or even better, none can possibly exist as the threads the presumption of naturalism and the one of rationalism and the ignostic-Ockham and existence note. So, men just made up all scriptures without divine input!

  All scriptures have no more validation for whatever reason than “Atlas Shrugged!”

  posts 258

[ Edited: 02 March 2011 05:12 PM by Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] ]
 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2011 04:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6170
Joined  2009-02-26
MikeD - 21 January 2010 07:03 PM

Good evening,
Yes and no, that most Christians believe in the “inerrancy” of the Bible. The idea of the “inerrancy” of the Bible is a pretty new one. Christians do believe… all Christians believe… that the Bible (Old and New Testament) are the “Word of God”. How that is seen though varies very much. - The Christian faith itself is not based on the Bible. Peace.

If Christ is the “direct son of god”, miraculously conceived of a virgin, then christianity is very much based on the bible. If only it were not so, then we could see Christ as a teacher of philosophy, which could be examined and argued as to pros and cons.
The bells and whistles come with the assumption of Christ being a deity or demi god himself. IMO, this actually detracts from the “message”. The message becomes a holy commandment and that begs proof.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 June 2011 06:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

Theologian John Hick finds that Yeshua is only the metaphorical incarnation of Yahweh. Thereby, implying that traditional Christinsanity errs by finding him the literal God Incarnate. That people can so radically interpret those Scriptures, itself bespeaks that that people should not accept that anthology as inerrant!
                      Since that anthology embraces contradictions with itself and reality, it bespeaks errancy. And since its notion of salvation is different from sect to sect, then no one should find salvation in reading it!
                      Sophist Alvin Plantinga prattles that by reading it, people embrace God, that affirms belief in God as basic, but as reading it provokes other thoughts in others, that means that God is no basic belief, and as he admits, others can have other Gods or none as basic belief.
                    Isn’t theology so silly Why, Pro.. Irwin Corey makes more sense!


                    http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com

  posts 262

 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 July 2011 03:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

The idea of the Trinity calls for faith as Aquinas so notes in his distinguishing faith from reason but still acting together. No!
    The Trinity itself contradicts reason such that they cannot work together for truth.
    To be both God and man and still another being in one substance requires three minds and three places of being. We never find even just two beings occupying the very same space.  Reason adjudges that as poppycock.
    How can one be both a disembodied mind with that most dubious proposition be united with a corporeal one, for which we only have evidence and still another disembodied one. How could that last one impregnate a woman? How could one be both God and man,yet distinct? Theologians rationalize all that. Faith doth that to people!
    For the sake of argument, allowing for a disembodied mind, science portrays Nature as not indebted to a director in that its parts act teleonomically. Therefore, to add that divine intent, not only violates, the Ockham with its convoluted, ad hoc assumptions of it may be and it must be.
    To aver that divine teleology directs natural causes contradicts rather than complementing science: it’s that it may be that evolution is His method of creation, invoking that new Omphalos argument that rather than deceiving us with apparent ancient ages, He deceives us with that very teleonomy!That tellingly tells against John HIck epistemic argument that in order for Him not to override our free will He makes matters appear ambiguous. No, He cannot do that,because of teleonomy! Supernaturalists cannot use divine teleology, because that begs the question of wanted outcomes besides violating teleonomy-no directed outcome!
    Therefore, directed- theistic- evolution is an oxymoron, He beings, despite Alister Earl McGrath, a useless redundancy!
    Whether as McGrath does with his definition of faith as that certitude one has after one has the evidence to know that He exists, or as John Haught maintains that faith envelopes ones entire being, either way that betrays the presumption of skepticism that people ought to just have provisional knowledge rather than the Truth. Therefore, errantists- non-fundamentalists err as do inerrantists-fundamentalist in finding that Truth!
    Therefore,  Dawkins in the end is right that faith means blind faith! Advanced theology therefore rests on the same sands as the fundamentalist kind!
    Therefore, as we ignostics note, how could a mystery,surrounded by still others, make for any kind of explanation as that ultimate one that William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne- that personal one?
    Reason finds no matter how one defines faith, it cannot help superantralists!

 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile