1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThanks, Nemesio. Just a couple comments:
I believe that there is a breakdown of terminology here. Those who believe
in the dogma of inerrancy believe that the Bible contains no error whatsoever.
All of the data presented are necessarily literally true. If the Bible says that
...[text shortened]... I am using (which I believe are fairly standard)
out in the open.
1) Re infallibility: Thanks for explaining that; I wasn't sure about the terminology, which is why I stuck with the phrase "doctrinal inerrancy." Does anyone within the Christian paradigm hold that the Bible is doctrinally fallible? Or do we simply argue on the basis of something like: "The correct doctrine is there, but people are fallible in their reading of it" (e.g., I might argue that literalism leads to false doctrine)?
2) Re literalism and factual inerrancy. My reason for separating these concepts (and I accept that I'm moving beyond the normal terminology) is this: I think someone could claim that the Bible contains contradictions, but that these contradictions do not necessarily constitute "error" if they arise from the deliberate intention of the different authors. Maybe I'm putting too fine a point on it.
Originally posted by DarfiusDarfuis, I agree with Nemesio. If you have disdain for other religions the holy ghost hasn't a place in you.
To be honest I would say you have no idea what the Holy Spirit is.
Besides, the holy ghost isn't going to whisper to you "see that Nemesio guy, he doesn't have the holy ghost, judge him," or "check out the *insert other religion*'s, judge them."
My apologies if you aren't like that.