Is The Bible Inerrant?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I asserted that you had committed a logical fallacy in the post of yours I quoted. The idea that logical analysis is "smartass" is new to me. Please explain how you would like me to handle fallacious arguments when I see them.

zeek, thanks for your retort this time. I'm just quoting the part I have a big problem with. Your one liner did not address anything about committing a logical fallacy and I think you know this. My post was quoting scripture for the most part and you call this quoting of scripture "a logical fallacy". So how did your one liner smartass "is this a threat?" quip constitute "logical analysis"? We've been over this again and again, but for anyone on this forum to consider the quoting of the Bible as "fallacious arguments" needs to find themselves a new forum.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

zeek, thanks for your retort this time. I'm just quoting the part I have a big problem with. Your one liner did not address anything about committing a logical fallacy and I think you know this. My post was quoting scripture for the most part and you call this quoting of scripture "a logical fallacy". So how did your one liner smartass "is this a threat?" quip constitute "logical analysis"? We've been over this again and again, but for anyone on this forum to consider the quoting of the Bible as "fallacious arguments" needs to find themselves a new forum.

I didn't say "is this a threat". You might know that I didn't if you had not deleted the post. I asked, "is this an appeal to fear?"

Arguments are a kind of appeal. It seemed to me that the thrust of your argument was that people should stop questioning things you hold sacred lest they be struck by the wrath of God when he returns. What is that but an appeal to fear? The appeal to fear is a fallacy with the following pattern: 1) Y is presented (a claim that is intended to produce fear). 2) Therefore claim X is true (a claim that is generally, but need not be, related to Y in some manner). This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim.

Your argument that I need to find another forum because I questioned a Bible quotation is false as well. When Jesus went to the wilderness the devil quoted the Bible to him three times to make his point. Jesus disputed the devil's arguments even though the devil backed them up with Bible quotations. So quoting the Bible doesn't necessarily prove an argument is true though the Bible itself be inerrant. Since what I was doing was like what Jesus did, it doesn't seem to be a good cause for expelling me from a Christian website.

[UntoHim]

Usually I save deleted posts in a moderator thread, but your's was so trite and unworthy of staying on the forum I guess I just deleted it outright. Even if you used the term "appeal to fear" your claim that it is "logical analysis" is just silly and knee slapping hilarious If quoting the Bible to you is a threat or and appeal to fear then you are just wasting your time here. What's worse is that your wasting our time as well.

If you don't want your trite quips and one-liners deleted then the answer for you is super simple - Don't Post Them. In the meantime if you want to dialog with other members about the Bible being inerrant or not then your welcome to do so. But don't insult, don't belittle and don't flame.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Usually I save deleted posts in a moderator thread, but your's was so trite and unworthy of staying on the forum I guess I just deleted it outright. Even if you used the term "appeal to fear" your claim that it is "logical analysis" is just silly and knee slapping hilarious If quoting the Bible to you is a threat or and appeal to fear then you are just wasting your time here. What's worse is that your wasting our time as well.

If you don't want your trite quips and one-liners deleted then the answer for you is super simple - Don't Post Them. In the meantime if you want to dialog with other members about the Bible being inerrant or not then your welcome to do so. But don't insult, don't belittle and don't flame.

I won't insult, belittle or flame even though that is what you did to me above. You mocked my arguments by calling them trite, silly and hilarious. Would it be too much for you to extend the same courtesy to me as you are asking me to extend to you and others?


But calling my argument names i.e. belittling it, is not the same as refuting it. To refute it would require a valid counter-argument. If you have any of those I'd love to see them.

Quoting the Bible isn't threatening to me. But when the Bible is quoted as a threat to win an argument, that deserves being pointed out. That may seem trite to you, but isn't from the standpoint of truth and also from the standpoint of empathy for the other party. It depends on whether the goal is to empower people with the truth or to control them by invoking fear. That isn't trite to me. As a person with authority it shouldn't be for you either in my opinion.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I won't insult, belittle or flame even though that is what you did to me above. You mocked my arguments by calling them trite, silly and hilarious. Would it be too much for you to extend the same courtesy to me as you are asking me to extend to you and others?

Lower your voice and strengthen your argument.

If the Bible is not established as an authority for Christians, then what is? Jesus, the incarnated word, is Lord. If you don't agree that the Lord's authority is conferred on the written word then please explain what is the authority.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Lower your voice and strengthen your argument.

If the Bible is not established as an authority for Christians, then what is? Jesus, the incarnated word, is Lord. If you don't agree that the Lord's authority is conferred on the written word then please explain what is the authority.

I haven't questioned the authority of the Bible for Christians. I questioned the use of fear to establish the truth of a proposition. If I say proposition p is the case and if you don't believe it a zombie will strike you dead, that does not make proposition p the case. The Bible can be used as a threat to do the same thing. The Bible isn't the problem, the fallacious argument is.

[UntoHim]

"Proposition P"? Sorry, but as much as you would like it to be so this is not a philosophy or logic class. It's an Internet forum that has a mission statement and rules - most of which you are diametrically opposed to. So why waste so much energy and fuss? Really, you must still have some of that ole Local Church glutton for punishment syndrome left in you.

And of course, sensing that your time is at an end, you go with the tried and true zombie smack. Dude, you make Harold seem like a lightweight...and let me tell you that takes some doing. I'm going to keep your last post up for a while lest you say "what?...I didn't use the term zombie...I'm positive I said 'animated corpse'.."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I haven't questioned the authority of the Bible for Christians. I questioned the use of fear to establish the truth of a proposition. If I say proposition p is the case and if you don't believe it a zombie will strike you dead, that does not make proposition p the case. The Bible can be used as a threat to do the same thing. The Bible isn't the problem, the fallacious argument is.

A single observation of a zombie not striking someone dead is sufficient to disprove this theory. In science we say that you cannot prove theories with observations but you can disprove them, the geocentric model was disproved by a single observation by Copernicus.

The question "is the Bible inerrant?" is in fact questioning the authority of the Bible.