> you know, when i argue with people about christianity and the bible,
> there are two arguements that i use, even though they never seem to get
> through.
>
> It's been a long time since this has been written and it was written by
> humans, maybe the text is corrupted. humans allow for human error. or
> maybe they didn't know and made a lot of assumptions and repeated
> "popular knowledge"
>
> so, why is it that no one will even consider these arguments, even
> though i see someone on this list has mentioned them.
For certain strands of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity, the
doctrine of Biblical inerrancy has been central. (Muslims hold to a
similar doctrine -- usually in an even more extreme form -- with regard to
the Koran.) You can see the implications of such a doctrine.
I think that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is itself in serious error
-- in fact, it's a form of idolatry. But that view won't usually get far
in evangelical and fundamentalist circles.
Lloyd Eby