Let me stop your right there. Biblical inerrancy is not and never has been an issue for anybody who has done any serious study of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of documents, all written at varying times, for varying audiences, and to varying purposes. To many serious, learned Christians, it is the word of God as focused, refined, and sometimes even altered by the minds of men. I understand that such ambiguity might sound like an effort to tear down your neat world of stark contrasts, but that's only because that's exactly what it is. If your neat, tidy worldview requires that you badly mischaracterize significant parts of it, then your worldview, neat and tidy as it may be, is flawed.
Other than your clumsy attempt at theological commentary, though, you've been doing quite well in this topic. Keep at it. Keep schooling people at basic US history and political theory.
I understand the timeline regarding the creation of the Bible (and the Koran). The Bible exists as the world's longest appeal to authority, the moral authority of a infinitely just and infallible God. All moral arguments raised in the Bible function along the lines of an authoritative instruction, not the empirical merits of reciprocity, normative prescription and proscription, social justice (though clearly, most were inspired directly by the mores of these near-tribal Bronze Age civilizations). I'm sure that many theological scholars will refer the rather fluid nature of the early Bible (and the early Koran), but I will disagree that it is not an 'issue'. If we're at the point where we're claiming that some portions of the Bible are not the word of God, are not 'divinely inspired', then it throws into question all other pieces. At what point can one tell that it's God speaking and not a person from three thousand years ago writing his opinion on the proper way to manage your slaves? If that person is not divinely inspired (but their writing is still gathered in the Bible) how does that create any authority to the supposed witness of the life of Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus of Nazareth? A law book shifts and changes to meet the mores of its people, but that's not what an infallible divine law book does. People have tried their best to interpret it to whatever best suits the social climate of the age, and I find this completely lacking in integrity.
My neat and tidy worldview only requires that if one calls themselves a follower, member, adherent to an ideology, they actually subscribe to the fundamentals of that ideology, otherwise they are not actually followers thereof. I can think of the five, maybe six ideological constructs I would invest myself as being a part of, and if you were to witness me disagreeing with their core fundaments, I would expect you to say that I did not actually adhere to it. An atheist who believes in deities some of the time, a rationalist who believes sometimes things break the laws of physics because of an invisible, unmeasurable force. I agree with a few moral lessons taught throughout the Bible on humanist grounds, but not because of the moral authority thereof, and therefore I am not a Christian, because the moral authority of God's word is a fundamental value of Christianity. To say I were a Christian while doubting or disagreeing with the fundamental values of it... I would feel extremely wrong. I don't know what to make of self-professed Christians who disagree with the core fundaments of Christian doctrine, whether publicly in words or privately in feelings and actions. And I know they exist, I know they make up the large majority of the faith because I'm friends with several.
No portion of the Bible is the direct word of God. It is all divinely inspired, but it is all the words of men interpreting that divine inspiration. The Bible is not an infallible book of divine law. Your primary mistake seems to have been believing the fools who say it is and then judging an entire religion based on that sole misconception. You and I don't understand why a person would call himself or herself a Christian while doubting or disagreeing with Christianity's fundamental values, but that's only because we've never been in the position of a Christian experiencing a crisis of faith during which they're not yet ready to completely jettison their belief system and community.
To return to the subject of your neat and tidy worldview, it seems to not allow for human self-contradiction for any reason, which is troublesome, because humans are constantly contradicting themselves.
Log in to comment