Inerrancy of the Bible and other Religious Texts (Jesus, contradiction)

[Ceridwen018]

In another thread about creation and evolution, we got off-topic discussing the validity of the Bible due to its supposed inerrancy. I would like to continue the discussion here, where we won't be disrupting the other thread. As well as talking about the Bible, I would also like to expand the discussion to include all religious texts that are considered to be inerrant by their respective religions.

To outline my opinion of the whole thing, I do not think that the Bible or any other religious text can be "logically proven" to be inerrant, or that any similar "evidence" can be provided to support such a claim. I think that people who choose to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible are believeing in something which is not based on any sort of logic or rational criteria whatsoever, and that they often dismiss reality in order to maintain their belief. I do not begrudge people who choose this path, however I am ready to debate anyone who is not willing to "call their belief out for what it is", so to speak.

Many people are quick to try and prove their "revealed faith", and I see this as a desperate attempt for personal validation. In my opinion, those who strive to provide "proof" or "evidence" for things like their god, or their religious text are merely displaying that they are not comfortable enough in their beliefs that they can accept them without evidence. It completely flies in the face of everything God requests of his followers in the Bible. Jesus said that we must believe like children, which means that we must believe without asking questions and without needing "proof". I would appreciate comments on this idea as well.

[michel]

Sure fire away - Don't know that I will be much good at answering, but I'm willing to have a go.

Yes, part of religion is Faith - which is what it says - accepting the package on trust. The only thing we can do for God to prove that we love him, is to accept him on trust - that is why he doesn't come around proving to people he exists - that would be too easy for us, if you see what I mean.

[Ceridwen018]

Yes, part of religion is Faith - which is what it says - accepting the package on trust. The only thing we can do for God to prove that we love him, is to accept him on trust - that is why he doesn't come around proving to people he exists - that would be too easy for us, if you see what I mean.

Exactly, michel.

[jewscout]

Frubals for you michel
i couldn't have put it better myself!

[michel]

Wow did I say something right?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by michel

The only thing we can do for God to prove that we love him, is to accept him on trust ...

You clearly have not thought out the contradiction inherent in needing to provide proof to an omniscient God.

[michel]

[quote=Deut. 32.8]You clearly have not thought out the contradiction inherent in needing to provide proof to an omniscient God. [/QUOTE

Maybe proof is a wrong word - we are being asked to place our entire trust - body and soul in God's hands; we will not get any sign from him while we are choosing whether to do this or not..........is that less funny?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by michel

...is that less funny?

Yes, thanks. You moved it from the category of absurdly funny to sadly pathetic. How very primitive and anthropomorphic your God turns out to be. So much like the primitive Chieftain demanding loyalty from his tribe. It's almost as if a primitive people made him in their image.

[Ceridwen018]

Hey now, Deut, at least he can recognize his religion for what it is. I can appreciate anyone who is willing to be honest with themself.