As I understand it, this list is to discuss whether the Bible is totally
without error or whether it contains errors. Matthew & Dave (& probably
Aubrey) maintain that it is totally without errors of any kind. Farrell
Till & Michael Fisher maintain that it contains errors of various kinds.
(There are other posters on both sides of this question, but these are the
ones I see most often.)
What I've been seeing is this. Matthew consistently refuses to address
valid points Farrell makes. Matthew also tends to characterize Farrell's
references to other religions and their holy books as "word games" when
they are simple comparisions. Matthew & Dave also constantly refer to their
own subjective emotional experiences as "proof" that the Bible is inerrant.
None of the inerrantists on this list so far seem to have even
acknowledged that other religious systems have similar subjective emotional
experiences. It seems to me if you accepts a fundamentalist's testimony of
an indwelling God & a changed life, you must also accept similar
testimonies from other religions.
For that matter, other churches fundamentalists think of as cults have
similar subjective emotional experiences: Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons,
Seventh Day Adventists, etc. Of course fundamentalists claim they have the
correct, true Christianity, but so do each of the "cults". Undoubtedly
fundamentalists claim the emotional experiences the "cults" have as satanic
in origin, but each cult says the same thing. Which are we to believe?
Matthew has also said atheism doesn't change lives, yet the EX-TIAN list
is full of testimonies of new-found freedom and healthier life patterns
experienced by those who have abandoned
fundamental/evangelical/dispensational Christianity.
Both Matthew and David constantly claim there are no contradictions in the
Bible and continue to deny the existence of contradictions even when they
are spelled out for them, chapter and verse. This is at the very least,
intellectual dishonesty.
Aubrey is another case entirely. He is not much of a communicator and
doesn't seem to be able to understand when he's been refuted. I suspect
from his writing style that he is something of an intellectual lightweight.
Farrell & Michael, on the other hand, seem to be very clear and direct.
They have an occasional regrettable tendency to be sarcastic, but in the
face of such stubbornness one can hardy blame them. They both seem to have
done their home-
work and (I hate to say this) it looks like they both have an edge on
Matthew, David & (especially!) Aubrey intellectually, educationally,
logically & as communicators.
(Now Matthew will probably quote the Bible where it says something about
the wisdom of the world being foolishness in the sight of God. Don't you
see, Matt-
hew, the purpose of this list is to determine if the Bible is worth quoting?)
There's more, but this post is too long already. To be (possibly) continued...
GENE (THE OTHER) NIELSEN
genen@silcom.com
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.