Robert said
Damian King said
You called Christian theology “theological and confessional nonsense.” Then you reiterated this by saying: that in Europe you “simply ignored all of this idiocy”. I know you will justify yourself by saying that you did not mean me, just those “crazies who dare to believe in God”… but it’s just shallow nonsense. You knew that I was already getting attacked for my beliefs, and you came here with that language. I do not have to apologize for my Roman Catholic faith. And the way you described Christian theology was completely unnecessary. I was neither rude, nor did I EVER force my beliefs on anyone here. I am a committed Roman Catholic, and happily respect other people’s right to be atheists.
Please do not pretend to speak for me. Not only was I not speaking of you personally, I also certainly do not consider all people who dare to believe in God to be crazies. Nor do I consider all Christian theology to be theological and confessional nonsense. What you describe as my “shallow nonsense” beliefs are simply not at all my beliefs. If you want to be fair and just, you will retract these statements about me. An apology would also be appreciated.
There won’t be any apology. I think you are TOTALLY deranged and completely unpleasant to engage with. And now that you continue to harass me, I might add creepy to the list too
Robert said
Could you at least answer my question: When did I ridicule your faith?
I already answered that above. The terms you used to refer to Christian theology, and that is AFTER you knew that other lunatic was discriminating against me because of my Roman Catholicism
Robert said
Damian King said
I already answered that above. The terms you used to refer to Christian theology, and that is AFTER you knew that other lunatic was discriminating against me because of my Roman Catholicism
But I said nothing at all about Christian theology in general, let alone all Christian theology, let alone your own Christian, Catholic faith. In fact, I never even used the word Christian at all.
The only mention I made of ‘theology’ was when I did indeed speak of “conservative, evangelical, and even fundamentalist ‘scholars’ whose work is warped by such theological and confessional nonsense” and the “such” referred specifically to belief in biblical innerrancy, which I believe you yourself were saying should not really be a part of what you consider ‘neutral biblical scholarship’. Hence your own question, which I was answering:
“So my question is, how would a secular historian, who is trying to be neutral, approach a theological doctrine like the inerrancy of the Bible? How can someone neutral take sides on this issue?”
My own perference would also be to avoid such discussions, as was indeed my experience studying and working in Europe. But my answer to you was essentially that one needs to see biblical scholarship in it’s actual real-world context. Even if one is trying to be a ‘neutral biblical scholar’, she or he will oftentimes end up discussing biblical scholarship with other ‘scholars’, seminarians, or lay-people who do indeed take a very strong position in favor of biblical inerrancy.
I do apologize if you saw your own faith to be targeted or characterized as a ‘conservative, evangelical, and even fundamentalist belief in inerrancy’. There is indeed a Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of scripture with respect to faith and morals necessary for salvation, but I was certainly not speaking of that since it thankfully rarely enters into specific exegetical discussions among Catholic scripture scholars–believe me I have known quite a few, even some of the greats.
The idea that I was specifically targeting you because I knew that you were already being discriminated against by godspell because of your Roman Catholicism is silly. You may recall I tried to defend you against some of his accusations against you, eg, that you were somehow accusing Bart of dishonest scholarship. Do you really think I take my cues from godspell as to whose faith I should attack?
No. I do not consider myself a fundamentalist. I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but in a much more sophisticated kind, not necessarily a fundamentalist kind of inerrancy. In other words, for me, inerrancy does not mean that the Bible can’t have curiosities. I also think that there are many history books that are 100% accurate and yet I do not consider them scripture. I just thought your use of those words was uncalled for. I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. I just thought you were making me feel like an “outsider” for being a Christian. Sorry again. I take all I said back, and you can comment on my threads again if you want. Now, when it comes to the question I asked… For me “Biblical inerrancy”, is in and of itself a Christian doctrine, so why would a secular Biblical scholar take sides on the issue.
Damian King said
No. I do not consider myself a fundamentalist. I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but in a much more sophisticated kind, not necessarily a fundamentalist kind of inerrancy. In other words, for me, inerrancy does not mean that the Bible can’t have curiosities. I also think that there are many history books that are 100% accurate and yet I do not consider them scripture. I just thought your use of those words was uncalled for. I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. I just thought you were making me feel like an “outsider” for being a Christian. Sorry again. I take all I said back, and you can comment on my threads again if you want. Now, when it comes to the question I asked… For me “Biblical inerrancy”, is in and of itself a Christian doctrine, so why would a secular Biblical scholar take sides on the issue.
You may not consider yourself a Christian fundamentalist, but the inerrancy of the Bible and Christian fundamentalism form a tautology.
Inerrancy cannot be considered more or less sophisticated. It means that the Bible, as the Word of God that Christians believe it is, is free from all error in all matters it deals with. Likewise, inerrancy has nothing to do with curiosities, but with speach acts, especially with the locutionary acts (the performance of an utterance: the actual utterance and its apparent meaning, comprising any and all of its verbal, social, and rhetorical meanings, all of which correspond to the verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of any meaningful utterance) and perlocutionary acts: the actual effect of the locutionary and illocutionary acts (such as persuading, convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to do or realize something, whether intended or no).
Speech acts that refer to scientific, historical issues and non-literary texts (i.e., except poetry, fantastic stories, fables …) they always have the value of truth (T) or falsehood (F). The inerrancy demands that all those texts or speech acts have a T-value, that is, that they be the truth.
Accunancy has nothing to do with a text being considered Holy Scripture. What defines a text as Holy Scripture is that is included in a Biblical Canon (Catholic and Orthodox, on the one hand, and Protestant on the other). Nothing else.
The inerrancy of the Bible (which is, by the way, an example of biblical idolatry) is not a Christian doctrine, but the belief that the Bible “is without error or fault in all its teaching”; or, at least, that “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact”. Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not. The belief is of particular significance within parts of evangelicalism, where it is formulated in the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”. Therefore, believers and nonbelievers can judge that belief with the same intellectual and ethical right.
And I’m afraid I have to give you bad news: that belief is false, since the Bible contains hundreds of scientific and historical errors; It is full of contradictions and literary inconsistencies, as well as ambiguities.
The inerrancy of the Bible has done more to discredit Christianity than all scholars who have critically analyzed that religious faith. For it has made Christians who have that belief seem more than believers, credulous with irreversible atrophy of common sense. At least, in matters of faith.
Fernando Peregrin Gutierrez said
You may not consider yourself a Christian fundamentalist, but the inerrancy of the Bible and Christian fundamentalism form a tautology.
Inerrancy cannot be considered more or less sophisticated. It means that the Bible, as the Word of God that Christians believe it is, is free from all error in all matters it deals with. Likewise, inerrancy has nothing to do with curiosities, but with speach acts, especially with the locutionary acts (the performance of an utterance: the actual utterance and its apparent meaning, comprising any and all of its verbal, social, and rhetorical meanings, all of which correspond to the verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of any meaningful utterance) and perlocutionary acts: the actual effect of the locutionary and illocutionary acts (such as persuading, convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to do or realize something, whether intended or no).Speech acts that refer to scientific, historical issues and non-literary texts (i.e., except poetry, fantastic stories, fables …) they always have the value of truth (T) or falsehood (F). The inerrancy demands that all those texts or speech acts have a T-value, that is, that they be the truth.
Accunancy has nothing to do with a text being considered Holy Scripture. What defines a text as Holy Scripture is that is included in a Biblical Canon (Catholic and Orthodox, on the one hand, and Protestant on the other). Nothing else.
The inerrancy of the Bible (which is, by the way, an example of biblical idolatry) is not a Christian doctrine, but the belief that the Bible “is without error or fault in all its teaching”; or, at least, that “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact”. Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not. The belief is of particular significance within parts of evangelicalism, where it is formulated in the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”. Therefore, believers and nonbelievers can judge that belief with the same intellectual and ethical right.
And I’m afraid I have to give you bad news: that belief is false, since the Bible contains hundreds of scientific and historical errors; It is full of contradictions and literary inconsistencies, as well as ambiguities.
The inerrancy of the Bible has done more to discredit Christianity than all scholars who have critically analyzed that religious faith. For it has made Christians who have that belief seem more than believers, credulous with irreversible atrophy of common sense. At least, in matters of faith.
Stop telling me how to correctly express my faith. Biblical inerrancy is a doctrine of the Catholic faith and an important one too. I am a Roman Catholic and accept that the Bible is inerrant. This does not mean I believe the Bible is always historically accurate. But in what it teaches, it is inerrant. I do not force my religion on others though
Damian, there is no such thing as a serious discussion without serious disagreement. You say you respect the right of others to have different ideas than you, but you don’t seem to respect their right to express those ideas in your presence.
I’d say you should probably leave, but I have exactly as much right to do that as you have to tell me which threads I can post on, or who I can respond to. Which is precisely none.
In theory, yes–the Catholic Church still professes the inerrancy of scripture, but without believing in a necessarily literal interpretation of scripture. This leaves it with a lot more room to maneuver than the Protestant fundamentalists (though of course there are Catholic fundamentalists out there, whether they call themselves that or not).
In reality, most Catholics don’t actually believe scripture is inerrant, including many clergy.
All books without exception are written by human beings, and all human beings without exception are fallible. Yes, including the Pope. And funny how the people least convinced of the present pontiff’s infallibility are Catholic reactionaries. Predictable, but funny. 🙄
godspell said
Damian, there is no such thing as a serious discussion without serious disagreement. You say you respect the right of others to have different ideas than you, but you don’t seem to respect their right to express those ideas in your presence.I’d say you should probably leave, but I have exactly as much right to do that as you have to tell me which threads I can post on, or who I can respond to. Which is precisely none.
In theory, yes–the Catholic Church still professes the inerrancy of scripture, but without believing in a necessarily literal interpretation of scripture. This leaves it with a lot more room to maneuver than the Protestant fundamentalists (though of course there are Catholic fundamentalists out there, whether they call themselves that or not).
In reality, most Catholics don’t actually believe scripture is inerrant, including many clergy.
All books without exception are written by human beings, and all human beings without exception are fallible. Yes, including the Pope. And funny how the people least convinced of the present pontiff’s infallibility are Catholic reactionaries. Predictable, but funny. 🙄
Yes, but without coming in to attack me. If the first thing you write on my thread is how my religion’s doctrine has decimated Christianity – then probably you should think more before you are writing. Look at yourself. You wrote on almost all my threads, and haven’t missed a single opportunity to attack the key doctrines of my faith without us even talking about it. Papacy, teachings on sexuality, virgin birth etc. That is just rude, and I certainly have never started out like that
Well what do you expect a militant atheist to say? Jesus, man–our ancestors had to deal with heavily armed Lutherans and Presbyterians, not to mention the Inquisition. History tells us they gave as good as they got (technically, as Christians, none of them should have been violent for any reason, but never mind that now).
You can’t handle a cheap bit of web snark?
If you want to know what it feels like to be an oppressed Catholic, try living in Belfast a while. Or pose as a Central American refugee trying to cross the border while Trump is President.
Nothing that happens on the internet remotely qualifies.
Damian King said
Stop telling me how to correctly express my faith. Biblical inerrancy is a doctrine of the Catholic faith and an important one too. I am a Roman Catholic and accept that the Bible is inerrant. This does not mean I believe the Bible is always historically accurate. But in what it teaches, it is inerrant. I do not force my religion on others though
Now I understand you. It happens that you confuse biblical inerrancy with the doctrine of the Catholic Church that does not coincide at all with the evangelical belief of inerrancy.
The inerrancy according to yourself is reduced to the teachings contained in the bible, and you do not believe that the Bible is always true in matters of history (I hope you believe the same about science).
But this is not, I repeat, the belief of evangelicals Christians about inerrancy.
The inerrancy of the hole Bible is not a Catholic doctrine at all.
Specifically:
IN BRIEF (Catechism of the Catholic Church)
134 “All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and that one book is Christ, because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ” (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2, 8: PL 176 , 642).
135 “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24).
136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because I inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf DV 11).
137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully “understood except by the Spirit’s action ‘(cf. Origin, Hom. In Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).
138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.
139 The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their center.
140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God’s plan and his Revelation. the Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfils the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.
141 “The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord” (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (⇒ Ps 119: 105; cf. ⇒ Is 50: 4).
——————————————————————
According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, the Bible contains no error in matters of salvation, not in all otghers that it includes. There are no errors nothing more than for salvation. In other contents, the Catholic Church is not pronounced.
But what are those matters or issues that are intimately related to salvation? Well, in theory, what the Catholic Church says. But interestingly, it has never ruled on that in detail. That is to say, there is no single list approved by the Vatican that contains all the matters of salvation that the Bible contains.
This may help you:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As a curiosity: I studied in a school of the congregation of the brothers of La Salle (a Catholic faith school).
The year we turned 12 or 13 years old (I don’t remember) there was a championship of the catechism, of the type “you answer the question of a classmate and ask the next one to the next classmate”, in perfect order. So until all those who failed were eliminated and there were only three Catechism champions of that course that were left at the end. I was always one of them.
Fernando Peregrin Gutierrez said
Now I understand you. It happens that you confuse biblical inerrancy with the doctrine of the Catholic Church that does not coincide at all with the evangelical belief of inerrancy.
The inerrancy according to yourself is reduced to the teachings contained in the bible, and you do not believe that the Bible is always true in matters of history (I hope you believe the same about science).
But this is not, I repeat, the belief of evangelicals Christians about inerrancy.
The inerrancy of the hole Bible is not a Catholic doctrine at all.
Specifically:
IN BRIEF (Catechism of the Catholic Church)
134 “All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and that one book is Christ, because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ” (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2, 8: PL 176 , 642).
135 “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24).
136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because I inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf DV 11).
137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully “understood except by the Spirit’s action ‘(cf. Origin, Hom. In Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).
138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.
139 The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their center.
140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God’s plan and his Revelation. the Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfils the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.
141 “The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord” (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (⇒ Ps 119: 105; cf. ⇒ Is 50: 4).——————————————————————
According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, the Bible contains no error in matters of salvation, not in all otghers that it includes. There are no errors nothing more than for salvation. In other contents, the Catholic Church is not pronounced.
But what are those matters or issues that are intimately related to salvation? Well, in theory, what the Catholic Church says. But interestingly, it has never ruled on that in detail. That is to say, there is no single list approved by the Vatican that contains all the matters of salvation that the Bible contains.This may help you:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As a curiosity: I studied in a school of the congregation of the brothers of La Salle (a Catholic faith school).
The year we turned 12 or 13 years old (I don’t remember) there was a championship of the catechism, of the type “you answer the question of a classmate and ask the next one to the next classmate”, in perfect order. So until all those who failed were eliminated and there were only three Catechism champions of that course that were left at the end. I was always one of them.
Yes. I said so already. Infallibility for me is about the Bible’s over-arching message in its orthodox interpretation. I do not believe that the Bible is a science textbook or history textbook
Robert said
I only said “so-called biblical ‘scholarship’, especially in the United States.” For me that is a very important distinction.
For me as well, but are you saying the people producing it aren’t properly trained scholars? For me that’s the most important distinction, and of course there’s bad scholarship on all sides, not just from fundies.
Richard Bauckham is a superior scholar, who says things I find highly questionable, because of his religious beliefs–and yet he got to write “Jesus: A Very Short Introduction” for Oxford, which is kind of a huge deal. He’s not American. He doesn’t work in America. Bart Ehrman is, and does. Bart would certainly agree Bauckham has few peers in terms of ability. But his use of those abilities can be lamentable. Carrier, of course, barely even qualifies as a scholar, and is just as biased, in the other direction (and I’m sure he has many fans in Europe).
I think your distinction between European and American scholarship is a bit forced. (As is the growing political distinction between the UK and Europe, but different subject).
Fair enough, but most Christian scholars are not fundamentalists. Obviously you can’t seriously question any source material, if your religion tells you you’re not allowed to question it, only look for ways to substantiate it and make it agree with your predetermined interpretation of it. That isn’t what most scholars do, religious or not.
What generally happens, though, is that becoming scholars weakens their religious stance, creates chinks in the armor. I think fundamentalism has a very damaging effect on society and on religion–but I’m not convinced it’s really done much damage to biblical scholarship, and the really good scholars will just end up shifting away from their original beliefs over time, adapting them to an improved sense of the material. Case in point–Bart Ehrman. Not that I think all good scholars will go from literal belief to unbelief–I think Bart had that reaction because he was a convert to fundamentalism, then became disappointed in it (most scholars don’t begin from such an extreme stance). But to look closely at something that isn’t meant to be questioned but accepted without qualification, invariably leads to questions, whether you want it to or not. You can’t change the consensus without changing yourself.
Bauckham is a good writer, and I have no doubt when he’s focused on a very specific question in a paper written for other scholars, he does first-rate work. He does, in fact, often come to conclusions his fellow conservative Christians who are not scholars find bothersome, but he seems obsessed in particular with proving the veracity of the NT as a whole, and particularly John’s gospel. A very determined rearguard action. But that’s just another word for an orderly retreat.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure we agree here.
Try not to disabuse me of that, if possible.
😉
I wasn’t only talking about fundamentalist scholars. You seemed to indicate that was why you concentrated on them. (I think you preferred to focus on them, and used my mentioning them offhand to justify that).
Honestly, I don’t think you’ve ever fully understood anything I’ve written, for which I shall accept my fair share of the blame. But why does every conversation with you turn into a litany of misunderstandings?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert