Catholic Apologetics Guidebook

Dialogue on the Reliability, Inspiration, and Inerrancy of Scripture – Page 1

The following is a dialogue between myself and a self-described non-traditional Christian, conducted on a public message board.  My words are in black Verdana font, and his are in dark blue Courier New font.  I have made some minor changes such as spelling corrections, formatting, deletion of off-topic sentences or paragraphs, and explanatory notes [in brackets].  But I have not made any substantive changes in the original dialogue, on either side.  I should also note that this dialogue was conducted rather quickly — certainly with no intention, on either side, of having it appear permanently on a web site.  So this dialogue represents a snapshot in time, but it is likely that both of us would word things slightly differently if we were to take the time to completely re-write our posts.

It really is simple...if fundamentalist Christians would just say "I don't know" once in a while, when discussing scripture, the results could be great.

If they took the interpretations of others a little more seriously, if they studied the history, both politically and socially, of the times of the Gospels, if they could concede that maybe God has different paths for different people and that ANY path that served not only God, but humanity itself, in a kind and generous way, will end in salvation, well...we'd be on much higher ground.

It kind of sounds like you are saying that if everyone would just agree with you, then everything would be great! :-) But just as it sometimes bothers you when others try to convince you to see things their way, do you perhaps see how quotes like the one above might also bother more conservative/fundamentalist types? What I mean is, you sound rather intolerant of the beliefs of the very people who you have said are intolerant of your beliefs. And how do you know that the people you are referring to haven't studied the history of the times of the Gospels, but come to different conclusions than you have? None of this is meant as an accusation or an insult; I'm just trying to point out that tolerance and acceptance of others' beliefs is a two-way street.

These are just my thoughts, and I mean them in the spirit of one Christian brother to another -- I don't want to start an argument. And I'm sorry if I have re-hashed points which were made by others; I skimmed over some of the posts rather quickly.

Paul, regardless of how it may appear to you, I am not advocating that if everyone simply agreed with me than everything would be great. (LOL)

What I am suggesting is this:

Seeing as though we do not have the original texts, and no way to completely recreate them, nor the ability to distinguish from them one true and definitive interpretation, then we ought not dismiss the options and opinions of others, based upon this idea of an "unerring" word of the Bible.

In other words, if we can't even start from THAT place, then where are we and where are we headed?

If the foundation has an inherent, built-in flaw, well...how reliable can the editions constructed upon them be?

Yes, I don't attempt to disguise my disapproval with some ideas put forth by, what I consider to be, extremist/fundamentalist forms of Christianity, because I see them as a dangerous...something demonstrated repeatedly throughout human history.

For what it is worth, I would see a potential danger in an extreme secular society as well, and I certainly can see a culture of intolerance from that side too.

So...how do I know that some of these folks here haven't done the research and yet still came to the conclusions they now hold as true?

Well...I don't know that and some very well may have, but...it doesn't mean they are correct, and if sum total of their reasoning and justification hinges on the infallibility of the Bible, well...aren't we right back to the same square one problem...a house of intellectual cards built on a shaky foundation?

Paul, it is too easy to just flip an argument on its head and accuse the accuser of hypocrisy, because logic should tell us that truth is not necessarily found in such an automatic gainsay methodology.

Anyway...the larger point was that no religion is infallible, no word unerring and therefore no interpretation beyond mistake and miscalucation.

Some can attempt to flip that all they want, but it doesn't alter the reality of organized religion...that it is authored and orchestrated by humans.

It may be somewhat divinely inspired, and even well-intentioned, but it is still subject to the limitations of man and language, neither of which are infallible or unerring.

Paul, as a Catholic, I should assume you have a good idea of what I am saying and here is why:

2004 Newsweek poll:

Is the Bible literally accurate?

Catholics: 45% yes
Non-Evangelical Protestants: 47% yes
Evangelical Protestants: 83% yes

Will the world end in an Armageddon battle between Jesus Christ and the Antichrist?

Catholics: 18% yes
Non-Evangelical Protestants: 28% yes
Evangelical Protestants: 71% yes

Personally, I see absolutely zero argument for declaring the Bible as the unerring word of God, and the majority of the world's Christians have historically agreed with that notion, thus making "end times" prophecy an extremely dangerous proposition and an utterly absurd means for creating political foreign policy.

Remember, the Evangelical sect was born out of a fringe sect of Southern Baptists and Methodists and was originally deemed by Biblical scholars, in that day, to be extreme, dangerous and unenlightened.

I contend it is more the product of the 19th century American south experience, than anything accurately portrayed in scripture or something "divinely inspired".

I might also point out that its steady rise seems to coincide with the steady decline in American education.

While I know what that says to me, you can draw from that what you will.

From where I sit, it tends to suggest that as the emphasis on education decreases the credence given to superstition increases.

Again...we have seen this time and time again throughout human history. The more intellectually advanced the civilization, the less superstitious it is and yes...generally the less it adheres to fundamentalist religious ideologies.

I also think it is no accident that science is largely a target for Evangelical ire. Scienitific thinking would lead one to the conclusion that the Bible simply can not be the unerring word of God, if for no other reasons than these:

We don't even have the original Bible.

We know changes have been made to the texts.

We know it was authored by men.

We know language is interpretive and therefore not infallible.

So...when I say we need to get to a place where we can agree on these basic principles, as a starting place for discussion, I mean exactly that.

It isn't a matter of people agreeing with my personal version of faith, and I do very much believe in God, it is rather a matter of starting from a place where tolerance can take root.

Again...it is easy to spin that and say I am not tolerant of Evangelicals, but I would argue that assessment is far too simplistic and misses the idea of finding that proper starting place, because I do not advocate infallibility and make no claims to it.

You simply can't start from a place of absolute certainty and work backwards. That is just not how logic and reason work.

Does it never occur to people as peculiar that, generally speaking, the higher the level of completed education the less belief in fundamentalist religion?

It is my personal belief that extreme forms of religion are dangerous and that any religion that demands unquestioned belief in the "unerring" is an extreme form.

Heck, we've even had people on this board admit that they deliberately do NOT seek enlightenment, as if it were a badge of honor for saying so.

I just don't get that line of thinking, or non-thinking as may be the case, at all.

It is my belief that God bestowed upon us the gifts of the mind...consciousness, freewill, logic and reason...so that we may use them to get closer to Him and His creations.

This is what science can do! This is what enlightenment can do!

These are vessels by which we may come to understand God and His works on a deeper and more meaningful level, and in my estimation...that trumps this notion of a personal relationship, built from a position of not questioning or understanding.

To me, such beliefs seem a little more self-serving than perhaps they ought to be.

Oh well...yet another post that got away from me and ventured into long-winded territory.