Jason Bourne: Ask away

[_Jersey Girl]

My question: do you think the Bible is perfect and complete?

I'm not sure what you mean by perfect, LOAP, do you mean inerrant? Without error? If you mean without error, no I don't think it's without error.

Do I think the Bible is complete? Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "complete". The Bible is a collection of ancient books written separately. The cannon was decided upon by fallible humans. The cannon is complete in the sense that it contains the books that were deemed (by fallible humans) appropriate or consistent with a general (what to call it?) theological view. (I'm not sure "theological view" is the exactly correct term to use. Best I can do on short notice. ;-)

[_Jersey Girl]

I'll just work my way through each post and see what's here.

[_Jersey Girl]

My question: do you think the Bible is perfect and complete?

How typical.

Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book on earth" yet when they are asked to defend it and that claim where do they turn?

To the lesser correct book, the Bible.

They both are stories, written by men. Got it?

I think you are correct in all of the above statements, which actually touched on what I had to say to Jason in my exchanges with him. The topic of the thread in question was "Origins of the Book of Mormon." Defending one's position regarding the "Origins of the Book of Mormon" by pointing a finger elsewhere, is no defense at all. It is a defensive evasion.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jason,

There it is lined up for you. If you would like to question me, please do it here. Let's see how many times I refer to the Book of Mormon or Mormonism in order to answer your questions. I will likely not tell you how I "feel", rather what I think.

List your questions. I'm ready whenever you are.

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl, whythe jab about feelings? Where the hell does that come from?

Ok.....here we go.

Who wrote the books of the New Testament? Are they really written by who the books claim wrote them? If not what does that say for their integrity to begin with? If the authers were forgers and using others names why do you trust them? How reliable is the Bible? If the author lied about who they were how can the Bible be inerrant? Do you believe it is innerant?

I took no "jabs" about feelings, Jason. I told you that I would likely not tell you what I feel but what I think. Feeling and thinking are two very different things. I'll list your questions and my answers to them.

1. Who wrote the books of the New Testament?

I don't know who wrote all of the New Testament. Some of the New Testament was written by Paul though not all of the Epistles that are attributed to him.

2. Are they really written by who the books claim wrote them?

If you are asking me only about the New Testament, then here goes. I think that if the author states they are "John" (in the salutation line, for example) then the author named was probably "John". In the case of "John", we don't know who that is. Example: If the Gospel of John and The Revelation were written by "John", we don't know if it is the same "John" or who that "John" really was.

3. If not what does that say for their integrity to begin with?

I'm not certain why you think assuming that a salutation from "John" (I'll just use John most of the way here) was written by a man named John has any adverse impact on one's integrity. Now, if you are thinking about the Epistles, then I would agree that someone pawned a few of them off as being written by Paul. In that case, I wouldn't be as much concerned with the integrity (or lack of) of the forger, but with the integrity of those persons who approved the canon.

4. If the authers were forgers and using others names why do you trust them?

Why do you assume that I trust them? You see, Jason, in your questions you reveal assumptions that have nothing to do with anything I've ever stated on this board.

5. How reliable is the Bible?

I have to ask, reliable in what way? Historically? Culturally? Theologically? Doctrinally? Table of tribes? Creation story? What? Are you thinking in terms of reliable authorship? For example, the Old Testament books attributed to Moses could not have all been written by Moses. To think so, is foolish.

6. If the author lied about who they were how can the Bible be inerrant?

I haven't asserted that the Bible is inerrant. If the authors "lied" about who they were, I'm not sure that effects the content. They could have been using "pen names" to protect themselves, were who they said they were, or they were liars in every possible way.

7. Do you believe it is innerant?

You don't say what you mean by inerrant and I wish that people wouldn't throw that term out without being specific. It's a sloppy form of questioning/argument/debate/discussion. In general terms, do I think the Bible is inerrant? No.

[_Jersey Girl]

A quick demonstration...not intended for reply...

Why are you asking me about Biblical authorship, Jason, when you Mormon's can't get your story straight regarding the Book of Mormon? Who do you think you are anyway? Look, when you guys get your act together then and only then will you have the right to question me. Until then, it's simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

See, Jason? That's what you were doing on the Book of Mormon thread. It isn't a defense or statement of one's position...it's just an evasive filler.

[_huckelberry]

I think it's easier for LDS to defend against mainstream Christians attacks against their faith. Really it seems like pot and kettle smacking each other about a bit with neither getting out of the fire. I can't stand to watch for more than a year. Tops.

As a mainstream Christian I find I completely agree with this comment. All of the important reasons I see not to believe Joseph Smith are the same observations that naturalists make. The Book of Mormon does not fit real history. The Book of Abraham does not fit the Egyptian. Polygamy reads as a selfserving vanity etc.

There a few observations which come from my religious beliefs that overlap skeptics. Why should we have a fallible leader with too much authority? Is it not better to limit authority and encourage more individual diversity? Does it not work better to relate to the whole world by encouraging the best in other cultures rather than fitting them all into one ritual and formulae?

However I have repeatedly seen mainstream Christian propose to demonstrate that Joseph was in error because his ideas do not fit into their understanding of the Bible. The mainstream Christian often starts out with less awareness of how much Josephs ideas all come from the Bible in the first place than they should have. Yes, the ideas undergo some rethinking in Josephs understanding leaving traditional views behind on occasion. The argument goes round and round about whose interpretation is best. However no conclusion is possible both because there is ambiguity in Biblical interpretation and because LDS believe they have new inpute trumping older views. Both sides are playing a game thinking they hold the Trump but not agreeing which suit is Trump. The discussion devolves into dead ends.

I think that the Bible stands criticism better by far than the Book of Mormon. To think that I do have to loose some ridgid preconceptions about how God is communicating with humans. I have noticed a lot of nonbelievers think that such view gives up too much authority leaving little reason to believe. I sort of understand that perception but think there are other reasons to believe.

[_Jason Bourne]

My question: do you think the Bible is perfect and complete?

I'm not sure what you mean by perfect, LOAP, do you mean inerrant? Without error? If you mean without error, no I don't think it's without error.

Do I think the Bible is complete? Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "complete". The Bible is a collection of ancient books written separately. The cannon was decided upon by fallible humans. The cannon is complete in the sense that it contains the books that were deemed (by fallible humans) appropriate or consistent with a general (what to call it?) theological view. (I'm not sure "theological view" is the exactly correct term to use. Best I can do on short notice. ;-)

If it was compiled by fallible humans indicate that is the Bible is fallible? Might it not be complete? Could books that should not have been included end up being in the Bible and visa versa? If so why should it be considered the word of God in total and the only word of God? Is your view consistent with conservative Christianity or is it comparable to a more liberal view?

[_Jason Bourne]

My question: do you think the Bible is perfect and complete?

How typical.

Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book on earth" yet when they are asked to defend it and that claim where do they turn?

To the lesser correct book, the Bible.

They both are stories, written by men. Got it?

I think you are correct in all of the above statements, which actually touched on what I had to say to Jason in my exchanges with him. The topic of the thread in question was "Origins of the Book of Mormon." Defending one's position regarding the "Origins of the Book of Mormon" by pointing a finger elsewhere, is no defense at all. It is a defensive evasion.

The problem is I was not defending anything. I was making sure the attacker was not the typical disingenuous Christian who attacks the LDS faith with one set of standards but refuses to apply them to their own faith. I readily agree that an attack and critique of Christianity will not help the Mormon position. On the other hand I have no use for Christians that attack LDSers but refuse to consider that their own faith it fraught with problems.

If you cannot see the difference, or refuse to, I cannot help you.

[_Jason Bourne]

A quick demonstration...not intended for reply...

Why are you asking me about Biblical authorship, Jason, when you Mormon's can't get your story straight regarding the Book of Mormon? Who do you think you are anyway? Look, when you guys get your act together then and only then will you have the right to question me. Until then, it's simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

See, Jason? That's what you were doing on the Book of Mormon thread. It isn't a defense or statement of one's position...it's just an evasive filler.

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason,

There it is lined up for you. If you would like to question me, please do it here. Let's see how many times I refer to the Book of Mormon or Mormonism in order to answer your questions. I will likely not tell you how I "feel", rather what I think.

List your questions. I'm ready whenever you are.

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl, whythe jab about feelings? Where the hell does that come from?

Ok.....here we go.

Who wrote the books of the New Testament? Are they really written by who the books claim wrote them? If not what does that say for their integrity to begin with? If the authers were forgers and using others names why do you trust them? How reliable is the Bible? If the author lied about who they were how can the Bible be inerrant? Do you believe it is innerant?

I took no "jabs" about feelings, Jason. I told you that I would likely not tell you what I feel but what I think. Feeling and thinking are two very different things. I'll list your questions and my answers to them.

1. Who wrote the books of the New Testament?

I don't know who wrote all of the New Testament. Some of the New Testament was written by Paul though not all of the Epistles that are attributed to him.

2. Are they really written by who the books claim wrote them?

If you are asking me only about the New Testament, then here goes. I think that if the author states they are "John" (in the salutation line, for example) then the author named was probably "John". In the case of "John", we don't know who that is. Example: If the Gospel of John and The Revelation were written by "John", we don't know if it is the same "John" or who that "John" really was.

3. If not what does that say for their integrity to begin with?

I'm not certain why you think assuming that a salutation from "John" (I'll just use John most of the way here) was written by a man named John has any adverse impact on one's integrity. Now, if you are thinking about the Epistles, then I would agree that someone pawned a few of them off as being written by Paul. In that case, I wouldn't be as much concerned with the integrity (or lack of) of the forger, but with the integrity of those persons who approved the canon.

4. If the authers were forgers and using others names why do you trust them?

Why do you assume that I trust them? You see, Jason, in your questions you reveal assumptions that have nothing to do with anything I've ever stated on this board.

5. How reliable is the Bible?

I have to ask, reliable in what way? Historically? Culturally? Theologically? Doctrinally? Table of tribes? Creation story? What? Are you thinking in terms of reliable authorship? For example, the Old Testament books attributed to Moses could not have all been written by Moses. To think so, is foolish.

6. If the author lied about who they were how can the Bible be inerrant?

I haven't asserted that the Bible is inerrant. If the authors "lied" about who they were, I'm not sure that effects the content. They could have been using "pen names" to protect themselves, were who they said they were, or they were liars in every possible way.

7. Do you believe it is innerant?

You don't say what you mean by inerrant and I wish that people wouldn't throw that term out without being specific. It's a sloppy form of questioning/argument/debate/discussion. In general terms, do I think the Bible is inerrant? No.

Holy smokes. Were my questions really so hard to understand that you had to dance around them? I don't have the energy to do this one tonight. I will try to be more "simple" in my approach when I respond to this.