No, no and no—you cannot, cannot use the Bible as an authoritive source. I have made it exceedingly clear why it is ridiculous to do so. Nonetheless, you persist in being stubborn, so I will try to clarify even further by using an example.
A young earth creationist is debating a scientist on the age of the earth. The scientist says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and uses radiometric dating to substantiate his claims. The young earth creationist says that the earth is about 6,000 years old and uses the Bible to substantiate his claims.
No one who possessed a rational mind would take the young earth creationist seriously, because the Bible is certainly not an authoritive source. Further, the Bible isn't even credible because errors, which you stubbornly refuse to see and continuously make unsubstantiated claims to excuse them, abound in it.
Wow. You really don't get it. Amazing!
Why do you use an example from science rather than dealing directly with the issue itself? I am not using the Bible to define something
scientific; I am using the Bible to define what is
Christian. The Bible is
the authority on what is Christian;
all of what is known of Christian doctrine and theology is sourced from the Bible. The Bible may not be well-used as a means of defending a scientific assertion because it is not a book about science. But it
is the final authority on things Christian. For this reason it is perfectly appropriate to cite it in defense of the view that you were never a Christian.
And whether or not the Bible is "full of errors," it is
still the document which defines what a Christian is. What errors you think you see have no relevance at all to the Bible's authority to define the meaning of the term "Christian." If I am mistaken about what Pi to the thousandth place is, this doesn't mean I can't speak authoritatively about my own love of chocolate. I am the authority on what I think of chocolate, even if I am in error about other things.
No one with a rational mind would take your idea seriously, that the author of Isaiah meant "roundness" when he said "circle." As I said earlier, you need to actually substantiate your claim with a reliabe source. Are you ever going to provide a source of Hebrew lexicon that proves the word chuwg means "roundness"?
You aren't thinking very clearly about this stuff, I'm afraid. I have never asserted that the word Isaiah used was not "circle" as you suggest, but that when he uses it
figuratively in the passage you cited, he is not intending a
literal application of the word. This isn't that hard to understand...
I honestly don't believe that you're not intelligent enough to lack the ability to distinguish between something that is metaphorical and something that is not metaphorical. However, I do believe that you're dishonest enough to conflate non-metaphorical writing with metaphorical writing to avoid admitting that the Bible is wrong.
The pot calling the kettle black, here. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions, but expressing them isn't the same as being right about them. Any time you want to cease the ad hominems and get back to actual discussion of the issue, feel free.
It is always a mark of a desperate defense that it dissolves into personal attack. Interesting, that.
Are you really incapable of making the distinction between metaphors and non-metaphors? More likely, you just don't have the intellectual integrity to admit that your Bible contains errors. I had a similar discussion with a Christian; he admitted that the Bible is not scientifically accurate, but it's spiritually accurate. He then went on to say that "the Bible is not how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven."—At least he is honest about the Bible containing errors.
And
more of the ad hominem stuff.
I am not the one demonstrating a lack of understanding here. You've mistakenly used the No True Scotsman fallacy, and you've erroneously accused me of circular arguing. In both instances, I demonstrated clearly that you didn't know what you were talking about. And now this problem you're having with distinguishing a metaphor...Are you sure you want to continue?
What would you call the following?:
Ben (who is a human, by the way) had the eyes of a hawk, a serpent's cunning, and the brawn of an ox.
Is this figurative language? Am I using metaphor here? There aren't any "like" or "as" in this sentence. Does Ben
really have the eyes of a hawk, a serpent's cunning, and the brawn of an ox? Or am I only speaking metaphorically and in so doing drawing a rough parallel between Ben's attributes and the attributes of the animals? The answer, obviously, is that the description of Ben is figurative, not literal,
even though the use of "like" or "as" does not occur. A little time in grammar class might do you some good.
But let's just pretend for a moment that the author of Isaiah really meant "roundness," an idea not proven by even one inkling of Hebrew lexicon.
A Hebrew lexicon defines which word is used and its common, literal meaning. It does not define the many potential figurative usages of the word.
If such is true, it would have been necessary for him to possess scientific knowledge regarding the shape of the earth that was not known to most people at the time, which was sometime between the early 7th century BCE and mid 6th century BCE.
With God all things are possible.
I used an example on the first page of this thread; it was about the Patriots fan. You apparently didn't get the message with just one example, so I'll use more examples so that you will actually understand.
You really shouldn't bother; you're just embarrassing yourself.
There is a man; he is a chronic smoker and is addicted to cigarettes. He eventually decides that smoking is not for him and, with a little help, stops this detrimental habit. According to your logic, this man was never smoker to begin with.
There is a man; he is an alcoholic and drinks a 6 pack every day. He eventually decides that drinking is not for him and eventually stops. According to your logic, this man was never an alcoholic to begin with.
Is it necessary for me to provide more examples for you to realize how absurd your thinking is?
The Bible makes no attempt to define who is and isn't a real smoker or alcoholic. It does, however, have the authority as the prime source of Christian thought and doctrine to define what does and doesn't constitute a Christian.
My logic does not arrive at the conclusions you assert in the examples above. You're comparing apples and oranges, I'm afraid.
Oh, but then there are your defense mechanisms—"Oh, the style of writing is too different to make a comparison." "Oh, the verse in Isaiah can't be an error; it didn't really mean 'circle', and the Bible is always right."
I've already written an elaborate response to the latter, so it's unnecessary for me to expatiate any further. But as for the former— there being erroneous passages with one style of writing cannot mean that passages with different styles of writing are totally free from errors. You didn't bother explaining how this is possible—but you don't have a track record of substantiating anything, so I'm not really surprised.
Being petulant does not make up for poor arguing. And its not that I don't explain anything, its that you don't seem to have the willingness to understand.
I used to pray every night. I was very religious. I went to church often. I was born again. I accepted Jesus as my savior. My entire essence was that of a Christian. Naturally, I take a lot of offense to your saying that I was never a Christian, much like how a retired and famous MLB player would take a lot of offense to a narrow-minded fan saying that he was never a baseball player in the first place simply because he grew too old to continue playing baseball.
Of course, you may take what offense you like. But it is the Bible, not I, that declares you were never saved. The No True Scotsman fallacy, as I've demonstrated, does not apply in this instance.
Lastly, I hope that you will have the decency, prudence and intellectual integrity to admit that the Bible is not accurate in saying that ex-Christians were never Christians, much like how the Bible is not accurate in its description of the earth's shape (and numerous other places). Oh, and I also hope that you learn to quit offending people with your scriptural bigotry.
If I were indecent I would have engaged in frequent ad hominems about you; if I were imprudent, I would have asserted things about which I clearly did not know enough; if I lacked intellectual integrity, I would have blindly reacted to disagreement with my position petulantly and thoughtlessly. But I have done none of these things. I can, however, think of someone who has...
I am no more guilty of bigotry than you are of lucid argument.
Well, this is as far as I will go with you. Its been...
interesting talking with you.
Peace.
ABBA'S FOOL,
