Is the Bible infallible?

[tjhammer]

(At this suggestion of others, this is a spin off of the United Way thread... I'll post my last message from that thread below, for those that want to continue this specific discussion)

 

Christ was a historical figure. His teachings (and more specifically, the teachings in his name) are pretty simple, pretty clear and documented. I don't believe in a God that micromanages. I don't believe in a God that is vengeful. (That is the God often reflected in the Bible, and I reject those depictions of Him.) I do believe in a God who created man and measures us on our ability to preserve humanity, a "foundational lesson" taught by Christ that "love" is above all else. I suspect this is a more spiritual approach, than a specifically religious one.

 

Let me be clear... I have not said that I reject the Bible as a source for solid religious principle, not just for you, but also for me. I have chosen to be a Christian, but I don't believe that those around me that are Buddhist (or whatever) are wrong... religion (IMHO) is a way to live your life, not a means to an end (some of you may disagree?). I think some Christians are "crucifixion Christians" and others are "resurrection Christians"... depends on what you find most meaning in.

 

 

I have said that I believe no part of the Bible (when taken in pieces or as a whole) is the literal, infallible word of God. In other words, the Bible, IMHO, is a good book to live by, but I don't believe it's sacrosanct and divine; it represents man's evolving attempt to articulate a religion.Rooster said: Does your proposition mention anything about the morality or legality of the behavior? Actually, it does not. Even if it did, that would be counterintuitive to your defense of homosexuality. Of course my proposition is about morality. Homosexuality is not immoral. (I argue pedophilia is immoral simply because it subordinates the will of a child who is incapable of consent and breaks down our humanity; how does homosexuality break down our humanity? How is it immoral? This is the essence of the same repetitive debate we've had for months on here, which is to say the only viable argument placed forth on the "immorality of homosexuality" is that "the Bible says its so".tjhammer said: It's inconceivable to me how anyone could believe that and still permit the Bible to be translated, revised for political correctness and updated time and again.

 

Rooster counters: Most bibles that have not stayed true to the original text (and "were revised for political correctness") are the liberal translations that condone the sinful lifestyles of the day (i.e., homosexualityLet's take, just for example, the current NIV edits to use non-gender-specific pronouns. That's the kind of "evolving" I'm talking about. Do you think that's inappropriate? Do you think God literally meant just man, or is that too literal of an interpretation.Rooster said: if you read the Old Testament carefully, it does not condone slaveryI disagree, and this has been debated here many times before where the scripture was even cited.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[evmori]

In answer to the question of this thread, yes. If you don't believe this then the Bible is just another book.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[Weekender]

Agreed, The answer to your question is YES!

 

G'Day

[ScouterPaul]

I tend to agree with TJ. However, I think that it an individuals choice regarding the Bible.

[Rooster7]

I agree with Ed. It's either the Word of God or its merely another book. I believe it is the infallible Word of God.

 

As for it being a choice? I say - Yes and No.

 

Yes. Individuals in this country are free to believe whatever they desire. I wouldn't deny anyone that right.

 

No. It is either true or it is not. What one chooses to believe does not necessarily reflect truth. The truth, as is God, is sovereign. It does not rely on anyone's opinion.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Quixote]

YES -

 

Tj's comment of "it represents man's evolving attempt to articulate a religion." indicates that it is nothing more than a best seller.

 

While it may be a best seller, it is in FACT the Word of God.

 

I am amazed at how many Christians there are who really aren't.

[melba]

Agreed! It is the infallible word of God. Not part of it, all of it. If you say you believe in Christ, then you believe this. You can't change things around to suit the present situation or dare I say "offend" anyone else's religion.

[Glenn]

I firmly believe the Bible was inspired by God and therefore is infallible. Not just the New Testament, but the Old Testament as well. Of course, there are many parables and fables in the Bible, but these were inspired by God to teach a lesson.

[packsaddle]

For anyone with interest in the development of the bible in the English language, this site is pretty good:

http://www.greatsite.com/engbibhis/

The New Testament as the primary text for Christianity was first developed approximately AD200. A good site for this history is:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Infallibility (or fallibility) cannot be assessed in a factual way for matters of faith. This is a weakness of our ability to critically examine such an idea, not necessarily a weakness of the idea. However, the concept of infallibility of the bible is related to the similar concept of infallibility of the Pope. And remember that Galileo paid dearly for his unintended challenge to that infallibility by explaining that the Earth orbits the Sun. He was put to the Inquisition for this heresy. A few hundred years later the Church recanted and officially agreed with Galileo (a little late for poor Galileo, though). Each person should view their faith personally and leave popular opinion and politics out of it. Further argument is recreational but not very illuminating.

 

[NJCubScouter]

packsaddle says:

 

Each person should view their faith personally and leave popular opinion and politics out of it. Further argument is recreational but not very illuminating.

 

I agree. Personally I would rather not know or hear about the religious beliefs of others, and I certainly do not want their views imposed upon me. I have a right to the latter, both as against the government and within the BSA. The BSA's declaration of religious principle says that this organization is "absolutely nonsectarian." When the BSA leadership imposes the religious views of the current, temporary majority on one particular issue, over those who hold different and opposite religious views, I object. The BSA is violating its own policy.

 

Thanks for raising the issue again though, things were getting too quiet.

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

You don't make distinctions in your argument with respect to BSA's declaration of religious principle and it's stance on moral issues. BSA does not require membership in a particular faith. BSA doesn't tell folks what god to worship. BSA doesn't tell folks how to worship. They do embrace moral principles. Some of these principles are not endorsed by some faiths. That fact does not nullify the strength or virtue of any particular principle. In short, their stance is not an endorsement of one faith or denomination over another. They simply endorse a set of some long standing moral principles.

 

No, they haven't changed with the "times". This should be a testament to their resolve, not a source of contention. They stand firm and to a large extent, alone. As long as they continue to fight for moral principles, I will be a proud member.

 

[Quixote]

NJ, you say Personally I would rather not know or hear about the religious beliefs of others

 

I'm just a little surprised to read this statement. I would have thought that you would be a little more liberal on this point.

 

On a side note, I think most Christian faiths as well as Islam teach that spreading the Word of God is a fundamental charge given to believers. Does the Jewish faith not have this charge?

 

I can understand not wanting other religous views imposed on you - i wouldn't want it either.

 

Quixote

[NJCubScouter]

Quixote says:

 

NJ, you say Personally I would rather not know or hear about the religious beliefs of others

 

I'm just a little surprised to read this statement. I would have thought that you would be a little more liberal on this point.

 

Well, I don't think liberal or non-liberal comes into play, because I didn't say people shouldn't be free to express their religious beliefs. They should, and they are. I do realize that what I said, taken literally, contradicts the fact that I am interested in religion as a matter of knowing my fellow human beings. When I read religious arguments in this forum and elsewhere, I often search the Internet for information about particular religions and beliefs so I can better understand (or criticize) what is being said. I even sometimes look up things about my own religion.

 

What I meant by the above comment, in the context of what I was responding to, was that I sometimes feel inundated by people's expressions of religious belief, arguments over religion, wars motivated by religion, terroristic murderous acts motivated by religion, persecutions motivated by religion, and (you get the idea). While I think everyone should believe in whatever God, gods, the Creative Force, the Great Spirit of the Mountains, or whatever that they believe in, I do think that people take these differences too seriously. And I don't really want people asking me or telling me to believe something different than what I believe. I don't think I am alone, or that this is a unique feeling. It is similar to the dislike that many people have for political ads; their vote is a personal thing and they don't want someone else initiating a conversation about it. It doesn't mean you don't have the right to evangelize, or witness, or whatever it is you do, but it also doesn't mean I have to listen. I have the God-given right to be annoyed sometimes.

 

Another factor, perhaps, is that I was raised not to talk about religion with strangers. Perhaps the reason for this will be evident in my response to Quixote's next comment:

 

On a side note, I think most Christian faiths as well as Islam teach that spreading the Word of God is a fundamental charge given to believers. Does the Jewish faith not have this charge?

 

It does not. All branches of Judaism, all major schools of rabbis, agree that Jews should not prostlytize (sp?), evangelize, seek converts, etc. from outside the faith. (Trying to get Jewish people to practice their own faith is an entirely different story, and there is at least one major Jewish organization devoted to this.) There may be a few rabbis or others out there who do this, but they are outside of mainstream Jewish thought and practice. At the same time, most Jews believe that people of other faiths should not try to convert Jews to other religions. Some Jewish organizations engage in efforts to provide Jews with information to assist them in resisting conversion campaigns; for example to allow Jews to understand that such groups as "Jews for Jesus" and "Messianic Judaism" are in fact Christian evangelical groups that target Jews through (in my opinion) deceptive means.

 

The reasons for this attitude among Jews go back, as far as I know, to ancient times, and specifically to the Christianization of the Roman Empire. At that time, and at many times over the next few hundred years, the dominant Christian rulers prohibited Jews from trying to spread their religion. This principle was often enforced through mass murder, burning down of villages, and other subtle means. Ultimately the rabbis got the message and basically said, fine, we will never try to turn a Christian Jewish, now would you please stop slaughtering us? Obviously the period of official Christian persecution of Jews has fizzled out over the past 400 years or so, to where it is now just a bad memory. But the Jewish tradition of non-prostlytizing has continued through this day, in part due to tradition and in part due to fear of renewed persecution. Another factor is the fear that with Jews being only 2 percent of the U.S. population, and having been devastated in the Holocaust, and with most Jews being secular in outlook, the whole religion could eventually dwindle away. In more recent times the position has been made a little bolder, rather than just "we'll leave you alone so you won't kill us," many Jews have added "and stop trying to convert us, too."

[Quixote]

NJ - Thanks. I can see more of where you're coming from on this and I respect your opinion (don't always agree with it, but nobody's perfect).

 

YIS

Quixote