ec2-3-235-137-159.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic

Some (in particular, lots of Evangelicals) say TheBible (as in the 66 books attested by protestants) is the complete, all-sufficient, inerrant, inspired WordOfGod, and is binding on all human conscience in matters of faith and conduct for all time.
Wait, doesn't that make them attestants?  --Vitenka

Some say it's not.  It's a bunch of words written down by people; as an instrument of control they claimed that they came from a higher authority still.  Since God did not strike them down on the spot, they are obviously telling the truth.  The book also repels ManEatingTigers in temperate climes.  Even if God exists and has a comprehensible will, it isn't written down in a book.

Strict subscriptionist Presbyterian?s say [all this] (the WestminsterConfessionOfFaith?). There are variants of it in use by ReformedBaptist?s and other ReformedChristian? groups, as Bobacus understands it.
Wait, they're serious?  I thought it was yet another well made net spoof!  --Vitenka
Such a style of language as used in such 17th Century documents do call most earnestly for a BNF generator :) --Bobacus

Some say that the Bible is no more the word of God than, say, Tolkien is. It is worth noting that this can be taken two ways.

(expand and/or add more Some say... lines here).

Some say that [only the King James Version of the Bible is the inerrant word of God]. --DR

All I have to say is: Respect scripture's authoritah!  --PlasmonPerson

Requiem froths at the mouth with suppressed rant. Home internet connection down for days due to evil dialup madness - unable to rant properly.

Caveat: MoonShadow sees this as a subset of KnowingGodsWill. He can see the reasons for making a separate page, but suggests we try not repeating points / flames / rants already made once on KnowingGodsWill; just reference them instead. If you're going to respond to something said there, how about doing it there or moving the whole thing here, so that we don't duplicate?

Thought: given most well-known religions have scriptures, should we have AuthorityOfScripture/Christian? etc and just make general points here and in KnowingGodsWill?

There may be disjoint bits, depending on what people mean by God's will.
Oh, indeed, and that's fair enough - in fact, if there aren't disjoint bits, then only one of the pages should exist - but I really don't want two identical flamewars. - MoonShadow
Anyway I will point out that the statement at the top is intended to represent a hard-core conservative position (well, theonomical fundamendalist), and IME all self-identifying evangelicals have considerably softer views. --Bobacus
I think that this point by Bobacus is extremely interesting.  I tend to agree.  Usually those who are in authority do not have the softer views and do not preach them, so it rather gives the impression that lots of people are hardcore Calvinists. --AR

Thought: how about we treat the top of the page as a growing summary, and respond to comments by fixing the summary and trimming the comment, so we end up with something more readable than KnowingGodsWill?
How about... no?  --Vitenka ;)

I'd just like to add that the tolkien comment just made is very nice.  It's one of those "It could be really deep or really shallow ones" which shows how poor a philosopher I am by my like of it.  You can take that in one of two ways ;)  --Vitenka

This is a debate I've been having elsewhere online recently.  The problem with using Scripture as your basis for believing Scripture to be inerrant, is that the reasoning is circular.  On the other hand, if you trust some bits, and those bits say that all bits are trustworthy, then I guess you can at least bootstrap. --DR

SeeAlso: KnowingGodsWill, Evangelical

ec2-3-235-137-159.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic
Edit this page | View other revisions | Recently used referrers
Last edited September 26, 2009 9:50 pm (viewing revision 24, which is the newest) (diff)