Liberal Christianity 2

[Bro. Hex]

No....the text, that you were saying was your favorite text, says that. Whether or not you are hearing voices is irrelevant....lol.

Yes, The text "says that"...

it's just not talking about YHWH.

[Coolhand]

I ask myself is this in the spirit of God's love and the God experience that I have. It has to make sense to me and I do not accept a thing just because its in the Bible.

Im not saying to accept anything just because the Bible says it.

Well tell me something that you do not believe in the bible?

I believe in God; the Bible is only a tool.

[Coolhand]

Tell me also that you see an issue between what Jesus did and scripture and what Paul is said to have said. Take a topic like women and gender equality.

Jesus on Women:- http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm

Bible on Women:- http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

Paul on Women:- http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm

What specifically are you getting at? If you can articulate a position I will respond to that.

Yes, The text "says that"...

it's just not talking about YHWH.

How can the text mention YHWH specifcally and not be talking about YHWH? Are you serious?

Might we consider this:

THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THOUGHT

There are three elemental laws of all rational thinking:

(1) the law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A);

(2) the law of identity (A is A);

(3) the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A).

Each of these laws serves an indispensable function in theology.

The Law of Noncontradiction

Without the law of noncontradiction we could not say that God is not non-God (G is not non-G). Thus, God could be the devil or whatever is anti-God.

The Law of Identity

If the law of identity were not binding, we could not say that God is God (G is G). Without the law of identity, God would not be identical to Himself; He could be something other than Himself (e.g., the devil), which is plainly absurd.

The Law of Excluded Middle

Likewise, if the law of excluded middle didn’t exist we could not affirm that it is either God or not God that we are speaking about. When we use the term “God,” we could be referring to both God and not God. This clearly is meaningless.

Hence these three principles are necessary for all thinking, including all thought about God. Since theology is thinking about God, theology cannot escape the use of these three fundamental laws of all thought.

Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume One: Introduction, Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2002), 81.

[Pete]

What specifically are you getting at? If you can articulate a position I will respond to that.

I am sure if you read the articles then it would be obvious. The General picture is Jesus was seen as inclusive and respectful of women but the bible and Paul appears contradictory and sometimes incredibly disrespectful of women (IMO).

[Fawzo]

What specifically are you getting at? If you can articulate a position I will respond to that.

How can the text mention YHWH specifcally and not be talking about YHWH? Are you serious?

Might we consider this:

THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THOUGHT

There are three elemental laws of all rational thinking:

(1) the law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A);

(2) the law of identity (A is A);

(3) the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A).

Each of these laws serves an indispensable function in theology.

The Law of Noncontradiction

Without the law of noncontradiction we could not say that God is not non-God (G is not non-G). Thus, God could be the devil or whatever is anti-God.

The Law of Identity

If the law of identity were not binding, we could not say that God is God (G is G). Without the law of identity, God would not be identical to Himself; He could be something other than Himself (e.g., the devil), which is plainly absurd.

The Law of Excluded Middle

Likewise, if the law of excluded middle didn't exist we could not affirm that it is either God or not God that we are speaking about. When we use the term "God," we could be referring to both God and not God. This clearly is meaningless.

Hence these three principles are necessary for all thinking, including all thought about God. Since theology is thinking about God, theology cannot escape the use of these three fundamental laws of all thought.

Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume One: Introduction, Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2002), 81.

If God was all there was then how can there be anything except God? He couldn't be anything other than himself since Himself is all there ever was and or will be.

How would a deity created anything other? He doesn't have building blocks or even the dust of the earth to create anything with. It would seem as if thought forms are his tools.

He would be creating in a similar manner as we do when we dream at night. We create whole worlds and communities that exist only in our minds and seem quite concrete and real while focused in them.

Now if he wasn't really All That Is and Others existed then thats a whole other scenario.

[Coolhand]

If God was all there was then how can there be anything except God? He couldn't be anything other than himself since Himself is all there ever was and or will be.

How would a deity created anything other? He doesn't have building blocks or even the dust of the earth to create anything with. It would seem as if thought forms are his tools.

He would be creating in a similar manner as we do when we dream at night. We create whole worlds and communities that exist only in our minds and seem quite concrete and real while focused in them.

Now if he wasn't really All That Is and Others existed then thats a whole other scenario.

Interesting philosophical problems you have created. I am equally as interesting in your solutions to these problems.

[Coolhand]

I am sure if you read the articles then it would be obvious. The General picture is Jesus was seen as inclusive and respectful of women but the bible and Paul appears contradictory and sometimes incredibly disrespectful of women (IMO).

Wow, Paul was the one who considered female deacons on the same level as the male deacons; and actually uses the same word for both. Paul recognized female prophets. Paul was the one that listed Priscilla before Aquila. Interesting perspective Pete; not very exegetically sound though.

[Raven's Trikes]

Wow, Paul was the one who considered female deacons on the same level as the male deacons; and actually uses the same word for both. Paul recognized female prophets. Paul was the one that listed Priscilla before Aquila. Interesting perspective Pete; not very exegetically sound though.

Umm..Paul also told women to be silent in the churches, and so on...if I'm not mistaken, didn't you renounce your ULC ordination years ago???

Stop bringing everybody down man...

[Pete]

I tried to post but the found the forum went down yesterday. Back now.

So Paul would have distanced himself from :-

1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV)

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (NIV)

But then fundamentalist claim Paul wrote all these sayings.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Pete

[Fawzo]

Interesting philosophical problems you have created. I am equally as interesting in your solutions to these problems.

I think about the other chracaters that are created during my dream. Quite often it seems as if they have their own consciousness apart from mine. It is true that at times they behave as my thought processes dictate and imagine, but at other times they seem totally independent and behaving in a manner that is totally opposed to my will and desire.

It might appear that these later entities in effect "sin" against me, but do they or is it even possible that they have the ability to "sin" against me.

Some portion of God might be in the same psyhcological state. Could God's desire for companionship have lead to a split in the mind of God. I've been trying to have an intervention for him for years now.

I tried to post but the found the forum went down yesterday. Back now.

So Paul would have distanced himself from :-

1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV)

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (NIV)

But then fundamentalist claim Paul wrote all these sayings.

But I doubt if a wise man would make the same claim. I think the problem comes in with them being funda-MENTAL-ist lol

Edited July 2, 2010 by Fawzo

[Pete]

I think about the other chracaters that are created during my dream. Quite often it seems as if they have their own consciousness apart from mine. It is true that at times they behave as my thought processes dictate and imagine, but at other times they seem totally independent and behaving in a manner that is totally opposed to my will and desire.

It might appear that these later entities in effect "sin" against me, but do they or is it even possible that they have the ability to "sin" against me.

Some portion of God might be in the same psyhcological state. Could God's desire for companionship have lead to a split in the mind of God. I've been trying to have an intervention for him for years now.

But I doubt if a wise man would make the same claim. I think the problem comes in with them being funda-MENTAL-ist lol

I see the gag. The mental operation based on fundamental principles and none other. To others who use other principles they do seem bewildering.

I am convinced that Cool and Dan is going to come back and say that he cannot see a contradiction with any of the above. Cool say he does not believe in an inerrant bible and that its only a tool but then the bible will be always taken as being the absolute authority and defended by fundamentalists. How does that differ from believing in an inerrant bible.

That I just do not understand. No offense meant Cool, but I truly do not.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

I tried to post but the found the forum went down yesterday. Back now.

So Paul would have distanced himself from :-

1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV)

So, like I said before, Paul recognized female prophets and deacons; do not forget that. Paul was writing to Timothy in what are called the Pastoral Epistles on how to set up a church. Culturally, women had no postions of authority. This remark, when viewed in its cultural context, and with consideration to its historical distance, should be taken as an issue of culture. But maybe I'm the wrong guy to have this discussion with, I support women in ministry and the ordination of women, and women pastors; which I believe to be Scripturally sound. Proper exegetical skills would help you here Pete.

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (NIV)

Interesting that you would use this Scripture. I am not suprised that you had to edit it to make your point:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansinga her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”b 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Eph 5:21-33.

I would like to point out that we are to submit to one another; so your point about only women submitting to husbands is only half the picture. The devotion is to be mutual. Another case for how proper exegesis would help you Pete.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (NIV)

But then fundamentalist claim Paul wrote all these sayings.

This would be a good one to bring up if it were relevant. Notice that you are trying to make a general statment about how Paul views women by using a quote from a letter he wrote to one specific group of people meant to address a specific issue. One must first identify what the issue in the Corinthian church that Paul was addressing. What was that issue Pete? Do you know?

This is why I do not like discussing Scripture with you Pete, your complete disregard for the texts is evidenced by your poor handling of it. You pretty much mischaraterize Scripture every time you quote; and you only quote it negatively in order to promote your antifundamentalist views.

[Coolhand]

Umm..Paul also told women to be silent in the churches, and so on...if I'm not mistaken, didn't you renounce your ULC ordination years ago???

Stop bringing everybody down man...

I have adressed what Paul said....context is king.

My status as a non-ULC minister is not an issue to the memebrs here or to the mods and admins; it only seems to be an issue when people dislike my comments. Instead of approaching it that way, why don't you become part of the discussion, friend.

[Coolhand]

I see the gag. The mental operation based on fundamental principles and none other. To others who use other principles they do seem bewildering.

I am convinced that Cool and Dan is going to come back and say that he cannot see a contradiction with any of the above. Cool say he does not believe in an inerrant bible and that its only a tool but then the bible will be always taken as being the absolute authority and defended by fundamentalists. How does that differ from believing in an inerrant bible.

That I just do not understand. No offense meant Cool, but I truly do not.

I have no idea why you are trying to make me take a side in your argument against inerrancy. You first had an issue because you said I believed in inerrancy. Now you are saying that I do not believe in inerrancy. All I said was that I do not argue for biblical inerrancy.

Inerrancy is a 'sucker bet' concocted by enlightenment thinkers in order to promote a liberal view of Scripture. It is taking the wrong approach altogether because it requires natural analysis of a supernatural document. Men do not know enough about the supernatural to evaluate it inductively or deductively.

Would you call a plumber to install an electrical circuit? Would you call a painter to install solar panels? Then why would you evaluate the supernatural according to natural standards?

Naturalists criticize things that do not conform to their rules, even though in this case they are talking about the supernatural. It seems to me that the only intelligent response to nonsense like this would be: “Duh.”

[Pete]

So, like I said before, Paul recognized female prophets and deacons; do not forget that. Paul was writing to Timothy in what are called the Pastoral Epistles on how to set up a church. Culturally, women had no postions of authority. This remark, when viewed in its cultural context, and with consideration to its historical distance, should be taken as an issue of culture. But maybe I'm the wrong guy to have this discussion with, I support women in ministry and the ordination of women, and women pastors; which I believe to be Scripturally sound. Proper exegetical skills would help you here Pete.

Interesting that you would use this Scripture. I am not suprised that you had to edit it to make your point:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansinga her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."b 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Eph 5:21-33.

I would like to point out that we are to submit to one another; so your point about only women submitting to husbands is only half the picture. The devotion is to be mutual. Another case for how proper exegesis would help you Pete.

This would be a good one to bring up if it were relevant. Notice that you are trying to make a general statment about how Paul views women by using a quote from a letter he wrote to one specific group of people meant to address a specific issue. One must first identify what the issue in the Corinthian church that Paul was addressing. What was that issue Pete? Do you know?

This is why I do not like discussing Scripture with you Pete, your complete disregard for the texts is evidenced by your poor handling of it. You pretty much mischaraterize Scripture every time you quote; and you only quote it negatively in order to promote your antifundamentalist views.

Who is deleting parts to make a point. Take 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35 in full and you get :- As in all the congregations of the saints, ³⁴women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. ³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

The context here is that all congregations of the saints do this. For me it is not enough to bend a Christian message to support gender repression whether in private letters or otherwise. Jesus was for all (IMO) equally and not to favour one gender above another. If Paul wrote this to support culture or not then he was not supporting a Christian message (IMO), but one of repression of women.

I could switch the same message for Paul's words on slavery to.

I personally do not believe Paul said many of these things but then one would have to question whats in the bible and guess your not up for that.

[Pete]

I have no idea why you are trying to make me take a side in your argument against inerrancy. You first had an issue because you said I believed in inerrancy. Now you are saying that I do not believe in inerrancy. All I said was that I do not argue for biblical inerrancy.

Inerrancy is a 'sucker bet' concocted by enlightenment thinkers in order to promote a liberal view of Scripture. It is taking the wrong approach altogether because it requires natural analysis of a supernatural document. Men do not know enough about the supernatural to evaluate it inductively or deductively.

Would you call a plumber to install an electrical circuit? Would you call a painter to install solar panels? Then why would you evaluate the supernatural according to natural standards?

Naturalists criticize things that do not conform to their rules, even though in this case they are talking about the supernatural. It seems to me that the only intelligent response to nonsense like this would be: "Duh."

Ahh the supernatural argument. Who can say what is supernatural or not. What shape it takes or not and how it interplays.

Inerrancy was not invented by Liberals just to pick on fundamentalism.

Take the following statements of faith:-

Assembles of God

"We believe that the Bible (i.e. the Old and New Testaments excluding the Apocrypha), is the inspired Word of God, the infallible, all sufficient rule for faith and practice.

http://www.aog.org.uk/pages/17-statement-of-faith/content

The Baptists

The Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to humanity. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13463.htm

Elim Pentecostal Church

The Bible - We believe the Bible, as originally given, to be without error, the fully inspired and infallible Word of God and the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

http://elim.org.uk/Groups/112249/What_we_believe.aspx

Liberals did not make these claims.

[Coolhand]

Who is deleting parts to make a point. Take 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35 in full and you get :- As in all the congregations of the saints, ³⁴women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. ³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

The context here is that all congregations of the saints do this. For me it is not enough to bend a Christian message to support gender repression whether in private letters or otherwise. Jesus was for all (IMO) equally and not to favour one gender above another. If Paul wrote this to support culture or not then he was not supporting a Christian message (IMO), but one of repression of women.

I could switch the same message for Paul's words on slavery to.

I personally do not believe Paul said many of these things but then one would have to question whats in the bible and guess your not up for that.

Well to start with Pete you deleted parts to make a point. You even have “.......” in your quote in Ephesians.

This “If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home” should clear up your little scandal. I guess you are suggesting that they cannot prophesy, or pray, or sing, or make any audible noise while in church. I do not think that is what is being said here. And I am not in the minority either, there are many women who speak in the church and hold leadership positions. Are we all missing what Paul is saying but you?

I’m not saying that Paul is supporting culture, but that that was the culture. While Paul is discussing his apostleship he says this:

19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), 1 Co 9:19-23.

This should give you insight into where Paul is coming from, that he realizes being culturally relevant is the point in order to reach the world with the Gospel. He understands cultural relevance.

In regard to slavery, read the letter to Philemon. That should clear up any misconception about Paul position on slavery.

We can discuss whatever you want, as long as we handle the Scripture properly.

[Pete]

Well to start with Pete you deleted parts to make a point. You even have "......." in your quote in Ephesians.

This "If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home" should clear up your little scandal. I guess you are suggesting that they cannot prophesy, or pray, or sing, or make any audible noise while in church. I do not think that is what is being said here. And I am not in the minority either, there are many women who speak in the church and hold leadership positions. Are we all missing what Paul is saying but you?

I'm not saying that Paul is supporting culture, but that that was the culture. While Paul is discussing his apostleship he says this:

19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), 1 Co 9:19-23.

This should give you insight into where Paul is coming from, that he realizes being culturally relevant is the point in order to reach the world with the Gospel. He understands cultural relevance.

In regard to slavery, read the letter to Philemon. That should clear up any misconception about Paul position on slavery.

We can discuss whatever you want, as long as we handle the Scripture properly.

I would call that Paul being unprincipled and fake.

Handle scripture properly, I guess you mean your way. I also notice that your overlooking the quote about all congregations of the saints silence women in their churches.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

Ahh the supernatural argument. Who can say what is supernatural or not. What shape it takes or not and how it interplays.

Inerrancy was not invented by Liberals just to pick on fundamentalism.

Take the following statements of faith:-

Assembles of God

"We believe that the Bible (i.e. the Old and New Testaments excluding the Apocrypha), is the inspired Word of God, the infallible, all sufficient rule for faith and practice.

http://www.aog.org.uk/pages/17-statement-of-faith/content

The Baptists

The Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to humanity. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13463.htm

Elim Pentecostal Church

The Bible - We believe the Bible, as originally given, to be without error, the fully inspired and infallible Word of God and the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

http://elim.org.uk/Groups/112249/What_we_believe.aspx

Liberals did not make these claims.

Apparently to you "inspired," "infallible," and "inerrant" all mean the same thing. It is interesting that you are trying to push inerrancy by quoting statements that none of which contain the word "inerrant." A little more of that sloppy agape I guess.

Simply put my position on this is that: (a) the Bible was written under the inspiration of God and therefore it is inspired; (b) the Bible has proven itself to be infallible in every area that I have applied its teaching, and I have never been let down by following all that it teaches and therefore it is infallible; © inerrancy is based on the assertion that the original texts are free from error. Being that we do not have any original texts I think it is foolish to say one thing or the other about them. Inerrancy is a statement about something that cannot be verified, which is why I do not argue or content for it. Saying that it is reliable is good enough for me.

Sure we can establish what the originals most likely said, but that is someone else’s argument; not mine.

[Pete]

Apparently to you "inspired," "infallible," and "inerrant" all mean the same thing. It is interesting that you are trying to push inerrancy by quoting statements that none of which contain the word "inerrant." A little more of that sloppy agape I guess.

Simply put my position on this is that: (a) the Bible was written under the inspiration of God and therefore it is inspired; (b) the Bible has proven itself to be infallible in every area that I have applied its teaching, and I have never been let down by following all that it teaches and therefore it is infallible; © inerrancy is based on the assertion that the original texts are free from error. Being that we do not have any original texts I think it is foolish to say one thing or the other about them. Inerrancy is a statement about something that cannot be verified, which is why I do not argue or content for it. Saying that it is reliable is good enough for me.

Sure we can establish what the originals most likely said, but that is someone else's argument; not mine.

I also feel it is foolish to presume that your the one to listen to over the bible. Totally unbiased opinion like. Your committed to proving it right but refuse to recognize for many of us it just does not make sense and contains some things that many of us would not want to be associated with.

Infallible would mean it would be inerrant or it would not be infallible. Again I would not say a thing is reliable if one cannot vouch for its inerrancy. Just because a Dud note can be passed of to an unsuspecting shop keeper does not make the note anything but a Dud.

To argue that it was accurate when it was first written but one cannot produce what was first written makes no sense and asks me to take it on trust. Something I am not prepared to do. Even so, if all churches of the saints were asking women to be silent it would not inspire me to believe it inspired even if I had the very first copy.

Its all a bit like giving your wallet to a stranger and trusting that you will get it back.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Pete