Should scripture be viewed as infallible?

[Anthony Willman]

IT IS INFALLIBLE! THE BIBLE IS COMPLETELY TRUE FROM COVER TO COVER!

[Benuty]

I've on occasion trolled people by claiming scripture is infallible, then again they were dumb enough to fall for it. As for pettiness aside, no it really should not as literalism from both sides is intellectually dishonest.

[Threlizdun]

IT IS INFALLIBLE! THE BIBLE IS COMPLETELY TRUE FROM COVER TO COVER!

CAPS LOCK MAKES PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME!

[The Orson Empire]

I'm only gonna address this part:

Christians can eat pork and shellfish and all those things forbidden to Jews, we can work on Sunday, because when Jesus was born on Earth those laws were "fulfilled" meaning revoked, basically. And the Law of Moses allowed divorce, but Jesus said "no",
and that punishment was changed to try and get people to believe in Christ, so proselytize, not punish. Or something like that.

sure
but it is rather odd that the fundamentalist, literalist Christian denominations allow divorce--specifically nixed by jesus--but balk at homosexuality that jesus never said word one about.

Fundamentalists only follow things that support their agenda. They balk at homosexuality, and yet they are also doing other things forbidden by the Bible.

[Shnercropolis]

sure
but it is rather odd that the fundamentalist, literalist Christian denominations allow divorce--specifically nixed by jesus--but balk at homosexuality that jesus never said word one about.

Fundamentalists only follow things that support their agenda. They balk at homosexuality, and yet they are also doing other things forbidden by the Bible.

Such as being rich and/or being intolerant.

[Solaray]

No. Mainly because scripture was written by a bunch of different people at different times. So I highly doubt they all consulted each other about what they're putting in the Good Book. Because of this, it's only rational to expect at least some bits of Scripture to be flawed or even outright wrong.

[The New Sea Territory]

Yes, we should view the ranting and raving of a closeted self-hating homosexual misogynist hermit who was allergic to shellfish and lived in a cave somewhere in Mespotamia doing the bronze age equivalent of LSD and believed that the world was flat, women should marry their rapists, polygamy is a-ok and justified genocide in the name of an imaginary friend in the sky as infallible.

[The New Sea Territory]

sure
but it is rather odd that the fundamentalist, literalist Christian denominations allow divorce--specifically nixed by jesus--but balk at homosexuality that jesus never said word one about.

Fundamentalists only follow things that support their agenda. They balk at homosexuality, and yet they are also doing other things forbidden by the Bible.

Such as cutting and shaving hair, and eating shellfish. Wearing polyester. Etc.

[The New Sea Territory]

IT IS INFALLIBLE! THE BIBLE IS COMPLETELY TRUE FROM COVER TO COVER!

Except for all the filler between "In the Beginning" and the last page of Revelation.

[Cyrisnia]

Should the scripture of your respective religion be viewed as infallible?

Simple question really, this can apply to any sacred scripture held by your religion within your religion.

My OPinion:

Most certainly so. I believe that Christians should view the Bible as infallible and that it should have complete authority in matters of theory and practice. My reasoning is that it is given to man by God to lead us from sin and that humans are by nature below God. Since this is true, people should use the guide that we were given. This does not mean that others should be forced to believe in it, but, I would want my religion to view it as infallible.

If so, how should it be applied in your religion and broader society?

If not, what role should it have?

No, Dear Ahura, no.
Whilst I decree myself as a Zoroastrian Convert (Converted to), I do say this: Scripture, no matter WHAT religion, is not perfect.
Because even if written by God/Gods first, humans write it down too. And we aren't perfect. We make mistakes.
We misinterpret. We declare wars over religions that promote peace and love.
Does that mean we should abandon spirituality and religion? No. We just need to recognize that scripture ain't perfect. Simple as that.
For example, take my religion's holy book, the Avesta. It was composed over hundreds of years, like the Bible. And was generally finished in the Achaemenid Empire. Now, you have to take note, that that collapsed in 330 BCE. Zoroaster lived in the 600's BCE.
Some parts aren't gonna be true, or at least, not that true, anymore, since its been over 2000 years since its been composed. Most parts still are true.

Same thing applies to all other religions. Some things are just outdated.


However, if you:
A: Aren't a dick to people of other religions.
B: Don't shove your religion down others throats
C: Aren't a dick in general
I'm fine with you. If you are a dick to people of other religions because of their religion, shove it down other peoples' throats, and are a dick in general, most people are going to have a problem with you, and, in turn, your religion.

[Distruzio]

Yes, we should view the ranting and raving of a closeted self-hating homosexual misogynist hermit who was allergic to shellfish and lived in a cave somewhere in Mespotamia doing the bronze age equivalent of LSD and believed that the world was flat, women should marry their rapists, polygamy is a-ok and justified genocide in the name of an imaginary friend in the sky as infallible.

There is, I think, a difference between considering the point of Scripture as infallible (as in, "what the fuck is this story about?") and bibliolotrous literalism in which the actual words of the text are elevated to such height that reconsideration of their value to contemporary society becomes offensive.

Just to let you know.

[Skeckoa]

Should the scripture of your respective religion be viewed as infallible?

Simple question really, this can apply to any sacred scripture held by your religion within your religion.

My OPinion:

Most certainly so. I believe that Christians should view the Bible as infallible and that it should have complete authority in matters of theory and practice. My reasoning is that it is given to man by God to lead us from sin and that humans are by nature below God. Since this is true, people should use the guide that we were given. This does not mean that others should be forced to believe in it, but, I would want my religion to view it as infallible.

If so, how should it be applied in your religion and broader society?

If not, what role should it have?

Unless you are quite the scholar, you are probably reading a version that was transcribed over the centuries by man and translated by man. Those are just two of many deviations that man have inflicted upon the scriptures.

[Castille de Italia]

No. In my church, we are encouraged to question the scripture, by praying or whatever, to gain a testimony. If you question it, and decide it's not true, well that's your choice.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

As a man written book it would be incredibly silly to consider it infallible.

[Blasted Craigs]

There is no option in the post for my answer, so I will just answer.

By practitioners of the faith in their personal life, then yes, on an individual basis it should be treated as infallible. This would be a matter of faith, and part of faith is in believing the tenants of one's faith as infallible.

As a group, and by that I mean as a representative of the governing body, no, one cannot and should never treat the tenants of faith as infallible. Unless one is willing to have the government choose a religion (lets say Scientology for example) and forcibly indoctrinate all citizens into the tenants of Scientology with reeducation camps, and if the person cannot be made a believer, have them executed, then as a member of a Governing body one must always see the tenants of one's religion professionally as fallible.

Everyone who wants a Theocracy always envisions the religion chosen as their own. If the above were the result, or even if a religion they hated like the enmity Christians feel for the beliefs of Islam or Satanism, they would be the first to rebel against such a government. And that is why the government must be impartial to religion, by losing that impartiality rebellion and strife is likely guaranteed.

[Jawyhria]

Of course, by definition, the scripture is indeed infallible. How can you say otherwise?

[Hurdegaryp]

Obviously not. I mean, all the scriptures contradict each other, so it's impossible. And that's just one reason.

Consistently viewing the holy books as infallible, every single part of them, would lead to spectacular theological implosions at best and worldwide fundamentalism-fueled mass annihilation at worst. Literalism is not your friend when it comes to using scriptures, that's why interpretation has always been such a big part of pretty much all religions. It's probably why we still have religions.

[Murkwood]

IT IS INFALLIBLE! THE BIBLE IS COMPLETELY TRUE FROM COVER TO COVER!

Death called. He wants his Caps Lock back.

[Big Jim P]

As a man written book it would be incredibly silly to consider it infallible.

Especially considering I am not the man that wrote it.

[Genivaria]

Of course, by definition, the scripture is indeed infallible. How can you say otherwise?

Because it is contradictory and doesn't match up to reality.

[Draica]

No, of course not. Nearly all theologians and people who study scripture extensively agree that scripture is not to be taken literally, and that most OT stories aren't entirely factual, and that they just try to teach a lesson, or try to teach something about God.

I would have to agree with this, and this is the main reason why I am not a Young Earth Creationist.

It's sad when I see these so called Christians agreeing with secularists/atheists on things about scripture. That disturbs me. You're one of those Christians that goes, "Oh I don't like this part of the Bible, I'l exclude it, how about this part"

It doesn't work like that, you 'Protestant Christian".

[Draica]

This is for all you supposed "Christians" out there:

Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.

[The Orson Empire]

This is for all you supposed "Christians" out there:

Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.

The Bible didn't exist in Jesus's time. That is the problem. The Bible was pieced together at a later date by Humans, not by God.

[Genivaria]

I would have to agree with this, and this is the main reason why I am not a Young Earth Creationist.

It's sad when I see these so called Christians agreeing with secularists/atheists on things about scripture. That disturbs me. You're one of those Christians that goes, "Oh I don't like this part of the Bible, I'l exclude it, how about this part"

It doesn't work like that, you 'Protestant Christian".

Are you honestly going to tell me that you don't do that as well?
If that's the case I have a kid I'd like to sell you. $200.

[Genivaria]

This is for all you supposed "Christians" out there:

Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.

So should I take that as a yes to the slave offer?