An Ambitious Fiction: We Hold These Truths …

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

More beautiful words were never written. But if the gentlemen who penned our Declaration of Independence intended that “We” to refer to the nascent America as a whole, rather than to themselves only, then it’s largely fiction.

I am agnostic and lacking in faith but, paradoxically, the only portion of that glorious sentence above that rings true to me is the “Creator” part. Because I do believe that, throughout human history, men have believed the reality of a creator to be self-evident. I think evolution has wired us that way, to seek an explanation for our existence and our purpose and, if necessary, to invent one.

But is man’s equality self-evident? Does anything about human history teach us that something in nature or nature’s God suggests to men that every other man is in any essential sense his equal? I don’t think so. I believe we are created equal, but I don’t believe that is self-evident.

I’m not talking here about the superficial inequalities of physiology and circumstance but rather of the equality the founders meant: equality of value and worth and, yes, of rights as a fellow human being. These are the aspects of equality that make our rights intrinsic and fundamental to, and inseverable from, each of us: that makes them, in a word, unalienable. That is the equality that has, for most of our history, been far from self-evident — that in fact is still not embraced by much of the world’s population.

This post was inspired by Stina’s post “Where Rights Originate,” which asks a deep, important, and ultimately unresolvable question. She inspired an interesting discussion, and you should go read it.

My purpose here is much more modest and practical. I want to make the simple point that, wherever rights come from, and regardless of what we believe about where rights come from, nothing that we cherish about our rights or our equality is really self-evident. Rather, it must be taught, and it must be taught early: The torch of freedom has to be passed on to each child long before he or she becomes an adult.

If we are going to restore our nation, we will have to reclaim our children. Home school, private schools, and church schools offer an alternative to public schools and their increasingly sinister and tyrannical administrations. But confronting the public schools is essential, which brings us back to the need to assert our right to free speech and free assembly.

The current efforts of the Brandon administration to silence parents, to caricature them as terrorists for challenging the authority of school boards, suggests that the public education establishment understands how unpopular its policies are and how vulnerable those policies are to pushback from outraged parents.

Push back. Keep pushing back. And make sure that your children are learning those truths that, unfortunately, aren’t really self-evident: that we’re all created equal, and that our rights are integral and essential — despite whatever they may be learning in school.

Published in Culture
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 150 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Spin (View Comment):
    It might be evident to me, but if it isn’t nearly universally evident (never mind accepted) then it isn’t self-evident.

    Is that a definition of self-evidence from a dictionary?

    • #61
  2. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I’m just pointing out that there are lots of fragments of text, lots of versions of the Bible, conflicting interpretations of translations, and even differences about what constitutes “canon” in Christianity. There is no sense in which I would consider the Bible “inerrant,” except in some weird metaphysical sense that implies that, regardless of the translation or the textual fragments used to create it, God’s message is none the less communicated without confusion or error.

    Metaphysical, yes, but so is the existence of your shoes, and neither is especially weird.

    Well, you have at least 5 distinct topics, and I guess you’re really into all 5 of them.

    But before we go down a definitional rabbit hole: Do you think the Bible is inerrant and, if so, what do you mean, specifically, by “Bible” and “inerrant?”

    The Bible is the Tanakh and the New Testament.

    I think the Bible is inerrant, meaning what Augustine, Aquinas, Vatican II, and the Chicago Statement mean. What William Bell taught me at DBU. What I explain in my two published articles on the subject.

    The Bible is the Word of G-d, and the original meaning is without error.

    You really are into rabbit holes, but you probably don’t know it.

    Inerrancy presumes the same commonsense approach to texts that virtually everyone takes with nearly every ancient text. We can say things about the original meaning of an ancient text, and all inerrancy is is a saying about the meaning of an ancient text.

    The critics of inerrancy tend to selectively forget that we can say things about the meaning of an ancient text.

    Tell me: When I go on YouTube and read a line from Seneca or Epicurus or Confucius or Aristole and then talk about it, do you think it’s ok for me to talk about it?

    Or am I prevented from making a claim about the original meaning of that text because we don’t have the original papyrus or sheepskin, because there are different translations, because there are differences in interpretation, and so on?

    Isn’t this all highly tangential?

    Henry should not require faith to be capable of following the logic of a paradigm. He does not need to agree with the premises of the system to be capable of following the logic that proceeds from those presumptions.

    This is Philosophy 101 stuff. If you want to understand what the founders meant by “self-evident”, then you must attempt to understand it through their presumptions, whether you believe in them or not.

    If you think their conclusions are wrong or wish to get to their conclusions through different presumptions, that is an entirely different exercise.

    • #62
  3. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Stina (View Comment):

    Isn’t this all highly tangential?

    I think he recognized it as a huge detour early on page 2, in fact.

    (As a general rule, I like the Ricochet conversational detours.)

    • #63
  4. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    As I understand formal logic, a statement of an axiom is only a statement of fact if you accept the axiom. The axiom, by definition, is not proven by reason. An axiom is an underlying assumption from which one can then reason. Am I incorrect about this?

    Yes, you are incorrect. Largely.

    An axiom is like other facts: It’s a fact whether you accept it or not.

    But it is known independently of other facts, and is itself used to know other facts.

    That does not prevent it, however, from being supported by some evidence.

    I know that “2 plus 2 is 4.” It’s self-evident. Understanding the meaning of the terms is enough for me to know that it is true. But if clever mathematicians can also prove it, good for them.

    This is where I have a different view, perhaps from my prior life as a mathematician.

    As an example, in math, there are five axioms to Euclidean geometry.  The fifth axiom, as stated by Euclid, was pretty complicated, but turned out to be equivalent to: “For any given point not on a given line, there is exactly one line through the point that does not meet the given line.”

    Is this axiom true?

    It turns out, no, not necessarily.  There are non-Euclidean geometries.  If you assume Euclid’s fifth axiom, you get one type of geometry, and if you do not, you get a different type of geometry.  It turns out that elliptic geometry and hyperbolic geometry can be described mathematically (spherical geometry is a special case of elliptic geometry).  Both have their uses.

    As an example, if you’re trying to survey land, you cannot use Euclidean geometry.  You have to use spherical geometry, because the surface of the Earth is (close to) a sphere.

    For other problems, Euclidean geometry is useful.

    • #64
  5. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    It turns out that elliptic geometry and hyperbolic geometry can be described mathematically (spherical geometry is a special case of elliptic geometry).  Both have their uses.

    Hyperbolic geometry is fun and mind bending, but the axiom is true for Euclidean/planar geometry.

    • #65
  6. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    As I understand formal logic, a statement of an axiom is only a statement of fact if you accept the axiom. The axiom, by definition, is not proven by reason. An axiom is an underlying assumption from which one can then reason. Am I incorrect about this?

    Yes, you are incorrect. Largely.

    An axiom is like other facts: It’s a fact whether you accept it or not.

    But it is known independently of other facts, and is itself used to know other facts.

    That does not prevent it, however, from being supported by some evidence.

    I know that “2 plus 2 is 4.” It’s self-evident. Understanding the meaning of the terms is enough for me to know that it is true. But if clever mathematicians can also prove it, good for them.

    This is where I have a different view, perhaps from my prior life as a mathematician.

    As an example, in math, there are five axioms to Euclidean geometry. The fifth axiom, as stated by Euclid, was pretty complicated, but turned out to be equivalent to: “For any given point not on a given line, there is exactly one line through the point that does not meet the given line.”

    Is this axiom true?

    It turns out, no, not necessarily. There are non-Euclidean geometries. If you assume Euclid’s fifth axiom, you get one type of geometry, and if you do not, you get a different type of geometry. It turns out that elliptic geometry and hyperbolic geometry can be described mathematically (spherical geometry is a special case of elliptic geometry). Both have their uses.

    As an example, if you’re trying to survey land, you cannot use Euclidean geometry. You have to use spherical geometry, because the surface of the Earth is (close to) a sphere.

    For other problems, Euclidean geometry is useful.

    Ok, so some axioms aren’t simply facts.  Maybe some are wrong. And maybe some are facts that only describe part of the reality, or one aspect of reality.  Maybe, like more or less everything else we know, they’re models that are partially correct and largely useful.

    That’s how knowledge normally works, isn’t it?

    • #66
  7. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Henry Racette: More beautiful words were never written.

    First of all, I must take the requisite cuts at Mr. Jefferson and his poem:

    Historians generally agree that Jefferson was picked to draft the Declaration of Independence principally because of his writing skills, but also because the more prominent men in the endgame, John Adams and R. H. Lee, had seemingly greater tasks to perform…  – Page 433-434

    In 1822, reacting to a comment by Adams that “there is not an idea in it but what had been hackneyed in Congress for two years before,” the Virginian did not disagree. … … – Page 435

    …as a political document for 1776, the Declaration was “deliberately unexceptional,” … As such, it is not unfair to consider much of the text as historical boilerplate of an elevated sort.

    “One of the problems with the early history of the Declaration of Independence is that there is so little of it.” said author Garry Wills in Inventing America. Minimal attention was paid to who had authored the document or its key parts until Jefferson was seeking the presidency in 1796. Thereafter party politics and rhetoric gilded Jefferson’s role, although in 1819, 1822, and 1825, he was put somewhat on the defensive by plagiarism charges. This is the period during which he emphasized trying not to be original. – Pages 436-437

    Continued…

     

    • #67
  8. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Now, off on a tangent:

    Henry Racette: But is man’s equality self-evident? … I believe we are created equal, but I don’t believe that is self-evident.

    Maybe we can back up a year to July 1775 and Jefferson’s hand in a little thing called “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms.” If we examine the introductory sentences in it:

    If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverance for our Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great-Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desparate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms.

    Pretty much a wordier and less poetic version of the same stanza. I guess he shortened that snark about showing some evidence of their Divine birthright of power and decided to leave off the less important rationales of “reverence for principles of humanity and the dictates of common sense.” I am beginning to wonder if you look too deep with “…the equality the founders meant: equality of value and worth and, yes, of rights as a fellow human being” and the real meaning is much more basic.

    Next, if I find the time and energy, I will back up another five months and hopefully extract similar thinking on the justification from Mr. Hamilton’s “The Farmer Refuted.” (That one has some real fire in it.)

    • #68
  9. Lawst N. Thawt Inactive
    Lawst N. Thawt
    @LawstNThawt

    So what were they thinking?

    The term first appeared in 1632 (per the OED) and seems to have been used a fair amount by biblical scholars and heavy thinkers.  No surprise.  This quote is from SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (1871) by CHARLES HODGE, D. D., professor in the theological seminary, Princeton, New Jersey, and only included here as reference to how the term was used in centuries past:

    But self-evidence is included in universality and necessity, in so far, that nothing which is not self-evident can be universally believed, and what is self-evident forces itself on the mind of every intelligent creature.

    A fancy way of saying a truth anyone would recognize.  I think, could be wrong, that one could sit down with any child old enough to understand the basic concepts of truth, being alive, being allowed to do things for themselves and being happy, and I think they would agree that these things are true.  I think they could also agree that rules are necessary (being governed by consent), that rules should be fair, and if not there should be a way to fix them, and I think they would agree with the other truths, as long as you discussed them in basic terms.

    I believe children have to be taught to hate.  I think the natural state of mankind is to love and be loved and it’s the adults who maybe need to learn from the children.  Jesus was keen on this idea.  I also think we try to make things too complicated and this is something else the little ones can teach us about.

    I’m satisfied these truths are self-evident.

    • #69
  10. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Lawst N. Thawt (View Comment):
    I think the natural state of mankind is to love and be loved and it’s the adults who maybe need to learn from the children. 

    Not from the children I knew and still know (including my two grandchildren). The natural state of a child is “If you have it, I want it.”

    • #70
  11. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I’m just pointing out that there are lots of fragments of text, lots of versions of the Bible, conflicting interpretations of translations, and even differences about what constitutes “canon” in Christianity. There is no sense in which I would consider the Bible “inerrant,” except in some weird metaphysical sense that implies that, regardless of the translation or the textual fragments used to create it, God’s message is none the less communicated without confusion or error.

    Metaphysical, yes, but so is the existence of your shoes, and neither is especially weird.

    Well, you have at least 5 distinct topics, and I guess you’re really into all 5 of them.

    But before we go down a definitional rabbit hole: Do you think the Bible is inerrant and, if so, what do you mean, specifically, by “Bible” and “inerrant?”

    The Bible is the Tanakh and the New Testament.

    I think the Bible is inerrant, meaning what Augustine, Aquinas, Vatican II, and the Chicago Statement mean. What William Bell taught me at DBU. What I explain in my two published articles on the subject.

    The Bible is the Word of G-d, and the original meaning is without error.

    You really are into rabbit holes, but you probably don’t know it.

    Inerrancy presumes the same commonsense approach to texts that virtually everyone takes with nearly every ancient text. We can say things about the original meaning of an ancient text, and all inerrancy is is a saying about the meaning of an ancient text.

    The critics of inerrancy tend to selectively forget that we can say things about the meaning of an ancient text.

    Tell me: When I go on YouTube and read a line from Seneca or Epicurus or Confucius or Aristole and then talk about it, do you think it’s ok for me to talk about it?

    Or am I prevented from making a claim about the original meaning of that text because we don’t have the original papyrus or sheepskin, because there are different translations, because there are differences in interpretation, and so on?

    Yeah. Okay.

    If someone wants to say that the Bible is completely correct because God dictates it, I’ll accept that as an adequate answer for any believer. For a non-believer, the fact that there are many translations that evolve over time and differ in details, and that they’re based on numerous fragmentary texts that themselves differ all the way back to antiquity, suggests that we probably don’t really have any one decisive perfect version of the Bible available.

    I don’t think that, for a believer, “Biblical inerrancy” should be top of the list, but then I have a distinctly orthodox protestant sense of what should be top of the list — acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And I have a distinctly heterodox view of Trinitarianism, Christology, hell doctrine, and a few other things.

    Of course, as a non-believer, my opinions are shaped only by my reading of scripture.

    • #71
  12. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Bible is the Tanakh and the New Testament.

    I think the Bible is inerrant, meaning what Augustine, Aquinas, Vatican II, and the Chicago Statement mean. What William Bell taught me at DBU. What I explain in my two published articles on the subject.

    The Bible is the Word of G-d, and the original meaning is without error.

    You really are into rabbit holes, but you probably don’t know it.

    Inerrancy presumes the same commonsense approach to texts that virtually everyone takes with nearly every ancient text. We can say things about the original meaning of an ancient text, and all inerrancy is is a saying about the meaning of an ancient text.

    The critics of inerrancy tend to selectively forget that we can say things about the meaning of an ancient text.

    Tell me: When I go on YouTube and read a line from Seneca or Epicurus or Confucius or Aristole and then talk about it, do you think it’s ok for me to talk about it?

    Or am I prevented from making a claim about the original meaning of that text because we don’t have the original papyrus or sheepskin, because there are different translations, because there are differences in interpretation, and so on?

    Yeah. Okay.

    If someone wants to say that the Bible is completely correct because God dictates it, I’ll accept that as an adequate answer for any believer.

    But it wasn’t dictated.

    (Well, maybe a few parts.  A pretty small percentage.)

    For a non-believer, the fact that there are many translations that evolve over time and differ in details, and that they’re based on numerous fragmentary texts that themselves differ all the way back to antiquity, suggests that we probably don’t really have any one decisive perfect version of the Bible available.

    . . .

    Way to miss the point.   Why don’t you answer my question?

    • #72
  13. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Bible is the Tanakh and the New Testament.

    I think the Bible is inerrant, meaning what Augustine, Aquinas, Vatican II, and the Chicago Statement mean. What William Bell taught me at DBU. What I explain in my two published articles on the subject.

    The Bible is the Word of G-d, and the original meaning is without error.

    You really are into rabbit holes, but you probably don’t know it.

    Inerrancy presumes the same commonsense approach to texts that virtually everyone takes with nearly every ancient text. We can say things about the original meaning of an ancient text, and all inerrancy is is a saying about the meaning of an ancient text.

    The critics of inerrancy tend to selectively forget that we can say things about the meaning of an ancient text.

    Tell me: When I go on YouTube and read a line from Seneca or Epicurus or Confucius or Aristole and then talk about it, do you think it’s ok for me to talk about it?

    Or am I prevented from making a claim about the original meaning of that text because we don’t have the original papyrus or sheepskin, because there are different translations, because there are differences in interpretation, and so on?

    Yeah. Okay.

    If someone wants to say that the Bible is completely correct because God dictates it, I’ll accept that as an adequate answer for any believer.

    But it wasn’t dictated.

    (Well, maybe a few parts. A pretty small percentage.)

    For a non-believer, the fact that there are many translations that evolve over time and differ in details, and that they’re based on numerous fragmentary texts that themselves differ all the way back to antiquity, suggests that we probably don’t really have any one decisive perfect version of the Bible available.

    . . .

    Way to miss the point. Why don’t you answer my question?

    By “dictated,” I mean ordained by God. Dictated as in issued as a command. If a believer believes that God says the Bible is inerrant, then it makes sense to for him to believe that the Bible is inerrant. If a believer believes that the Bible says that God says that the Bible is inerrant, and the believer isn’t particularly sensitive to wildly circular reasoning, then believing that the Bible is inerrant still makes sense — to the believer. I’m good with all that.

    I needn’t answer your questions, SA. You’re not my college professor. I’m simply making an observation that lots of sensible people will find reasonably plausible: there are many varying translations of many varying ancient fragments, and disagreements about what they all mean. There are many Christian denominations springing from that, all with slightly different doctrines, some with very divergent doctrines. What “the Bible is inerrant” actually means is ambiguous, given that “the Bible” is itself a rather ambiguous term.

    But, as I’ve said elsewhere (for example, in my criticism of Stephen Meyer’s pseudo-scientific apologetics), I think people of faith should avoid trying to make their faith make sense by the rules of the natural world. I’d add, in this context, that they shouldn’t try to make their faith make sense by the normal rules of language and logic, either — at least if they’re Trinitarians. And I mean that: people of faith should, in my opinion, hold faith paramount, and give up no ground to anyone who makes rational or scientific or logical arguments against their faith.

    I won’t argue that people of faith should reject the idea that the Bible is inerrant, if that’s what they think God tells them. Personally, I think it’s a heavy lift, doctrinally speaking, but then I think that about lots of points of doctrine.

    I still think it odd that it would be the primary point of doctrine. But, again, I did most of my Bible studying while in the mainstream Protestant traditions, where accepting Jesus as Savior was the big thing.

    • #73
  14. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    By “dictated,” I mean ordained by God. Dictated as in issued as a command.

    But that’s not what “dictated” means.  I don’t even know what you mean by “issued as a command.”

    If a believer believes that God says the Bible is inerrant, then it makes sense to for him to believe that the Bible is inerrant. If a believer believes that the Bible says that God says that the Bible is inerrant, and the believer isn’t particularly sensitive to wildly circular reasoning, then believing that the Bible is inerrant still makes sense — to the believer. I’m good with all that.

    You shouldn’t be good with circular reasoning.

    I needn’t answer your questions, SA. You’re not my college professor.

    Indeed I’m not.  But if you’re not going to answer this question, why not stop this farce sooner and just say at the outset that you refuse to converse with me?

    You gave me your view, and I responded, and you’re ignoring my response.

    I’m simply making an observation that lots of sensible people will find reasonably plausible: there are many varying translations of many varying ancient fragments, and disagreements about what they all mean. There are many Christian denominations springing from that, all with slightly different doctrines, some with very divergent doctrines.

    That is more than plausible. That is a set of well-established facts.

    What “the Bible is inerrant” actually means is ambiguous, given that “the Bible” is itself a rather ambiguous term.

    And that is ignorance. “The Bible” is not an ambiguous term, inerrancy is only said to be ambiguous by those who have never studied the doctrine, and neither of those things follows from the facts you cite.

    But, as I’ve said elsewhere (for example, in my criticism of Stephen Meyer’s pseudo-scientific apologetics), I think people of faith should avoid trying to make their faith make sense by the rules of the natural world. I’d add, in this context, that they shouldn’t try to make their faith make sense by the normal rules of language and logic, either — at least if they’re Trinitarians. And I mean that: people of faith should, in my opinion, hold faith paramount, and give up no ground to anyone who makes rational or scientific or logical arguments against their faith.

    Faith transcends reason. It doesn’t go against it, and if it does then it’s rubbish and should plainly be rejected.  But it certainly isn’t contained within reason.  And there’s nothing wrong with finding evidence for it if it can be found.

    I still think it odd that it would be the primary point of doctrine.

    I already said it’s not a primary point of doctrine.  Why do you keep bringing that up?

    • #74
  15. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    “The Bible” is not an ambiguous term, inerrancy is only said to be ambiguous by those who have never studied the doctrine, and neither of those things follows from the facts you cite.

    I think it is, but I’ll be happy to await your unambiguous definition. Incidentally, I’ve both studied and taught it — the Bible — for what that’s worth.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    I still think it odd that it would be the primary point of doctrine.

    I already said it’s not a primary point of doctrine.  Why do you keep bringing that up?

    Because someone else made that assertion. For goodness sake, SA, your word is neither the last nor the most authoritative; there are other people in this conversation.

    • #75
  16. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    “The Bible” is not an ambiguous term, inerrancy is only said to be ambiguous by those who have never studied the doctrine, and neither of those things follows from the facts you cite.

    I think it is, but I’ll be happy to await your unambiguous definition. . . .

    Once again, it’s the Tanakh plus the New Testament.

    Or did you mean an unambiguous definition of inerrancy?

    I also gave you that in # 57.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    I still think it odd that it would be the primary point of doctrine.

    I already said it’s not a primary point of doctrine. Why do you keep bringing that up?

    Because someone else made that assertion. For goodness sake, SA, your word is neither the last nor the most authoritative; there are other people in this conversation.

    And, for goodness’ sake, you were talking to me the last two times you brought it up.

    And who around here said it’s “the primary point of doctrine”?  I said it would probably be the fifth-most important doctrine, and Quietpi # 18 only says it’s “absolutely essential,” which could place it anywhere in the top ten most important essential doctrines.

    • #76
  17. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    “The Bible” is not an ambiguous term, inerrancy is only said to be ambiguous by those who have never studied the doctrine, and neither of those things follows from the facts you cite.

    I think it is, but I’ll be happy to await your unambiguous definition. . . .

    Once again, it’s the Tanakh plus the New Testament.

    Those are names for collections of texts that differ in both original material and translation.

    If two particular texts conflict, is each “inerrant?” How does that work?

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    who around here said it’s “the primary point of doctrine”? 

    Fair enough. The claim was made that it is “the absolutely essential doctrine.” Since the writer said “the” rather than “an,” I took it to be a superlative. It’s perfectly fair that the writer might not have intended that. Perhaps the writer meant merely that it is one of multiple the essential points of doctrine.

    I still find that a stretch, but I’ll concede the point that the writer might have meant something other than the most important point of doctrine.

    • #77
  18. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    “The Bible” is not an ambiguous term, inerrancy is only said to be ambiguous by those who have never studied the doctrine, and neither of those things follows from the facts you cite.

    I think it is, but I’ll be happy to await your unambiguous definition. . . .

    Once again, it’s the Tanakh plus the New Testament.

    Those are names for collections of texts that differ in both original material and translation.

    Yes.  So?

    Have you looked at my response on this matter in # 57?

    If two particular texts conflict, is each “inerrant?” How does that work?

    Obviously not.  Show me a real conflict in the texts, and, of course, I will have to change my theology.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    who around here said it’s “the primary point of doctrine”?

    Fair enough. The claim was made that it is “the absolutely essential doctrine.” Since the writer said “the” rather than “an,” I took it to be a superlative. It’s perfectly fair that the writer might not have intended that. Perhaps the writer meant merely that it is one of multiple the essential points of doctrine.

    I still find that a stretch, but I’ll concede the point that the writer might have meant something other than the most important point of doctrine.

    Good grief.  “The” was an article for “doctrine,” and “absolutely essential” was an adjectival phrase.  It doesn’t mean there’s only one absolutely essential doctrine any more than “the hot cup of tea on my desk” means there’s only one cup of tea.  Put something superlative in the adjectival phrase–“most absolutely essential doctrine,” and maybe you’ll have something.

    • #78
  19. Lawst N. Thawt Inactive
    Lawst N. Thawt
    @LawstNThawt

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Lawst N. Thawt (View Comment):
    I think the natural state of mankind is to love and be loved and it’s the adults who maybe need to learn from the children.

    Not from the children I knew and still know (including my two grandchildren). The natural state of a child is “If you have it, I want it.”

    I think I’ll respectfully disagree, though I would agree the natural state doesn’t take long picking up bad habits.  I’m afraid this may be more the root cause of a lot of what ails us.  It occurs to me that very few people learn from their children anymore.  Someone mentioned this in another post, how having kids changes the way you look at things.  A topic for another post maybe. 

    • #79
  20. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    who around here said it’s “the primary point of doctrine”?

    Fair enough. The claim was made that it is “the absolutely essential doctrine.” Since the writer said “the” rather than “an,” I took it to be a superlative. It’s perfectly fair that the writer might not have intended that. Perhaps the writer meant merely that it is one of multiple the essential points of doctrine.

    I still find that a stretch, but I’ll concede the point that the writer might have meant something other than the most important point of doctrine.

    Good grief. “The” was an article for “doctrine,” and “absolutely essential” was an adjectival phrase. It doesn’t mean there’s only one absolutely essential doctrine any more than “the hot cup of tea on my desk” means there’s only one cup of tea. Put something superlative in the adjectival phrase–“most absolutely essential doctrine,” and maybe you’ll have something.

    If you’ll carefully read the bolded part above, you will see that I acknowledged that point. You are being a pompous bully.

    I don’t mind. I don’t respect pomposity and I’m not cowed by it. But you are well regarded here, and I think it makes you look petty when you do that.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    If two particular texts conflict, is each “inerrant?” How does that work?

    Obviously not.  Show me a real conflict in the texts, and, of course, I will have to change my theology.

    What does “real conflict” mean? I can find two texts that conflict. What makes the conflict “real” to you?

     

    • #80
  21. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    who around here said it’s “the primary point of doctrine”?

    Fair enough. The claim was made that it is “the absolutely essential doctrine.” Since the writer said “the” rather than “an,” I took it to be a superlative. It’s perfectly fair that the writer might not have intended that. Perhaps the writer meant merely that it is one of multiple the essential points of doctrine.

    I still find that a stretch, but I’ll concede the point that the writer might have meant something other than the most important point of doctrine.

    Good grief. “The” was an article for “doctrine,” and “absolutely essential” was an adjectival phrase. It doesn’t mean there’s only one absolutely essential doctrine any more than “the hot cup of tea on my desk” means there’s only one cup of tea. Put something superlative in the adjectival phrase–“most absolutely essential doctrine,” and maybe you’ll have something.

    If you’ll carefully read the bolded part above, you will see that I acknowledged that point. You are being a pompous bully.

    I don’t mind. I don’t respect pomposity and I’m not cowed by it. But you are well regarded here, and I think it makes you look petty when you do that.

    You are mistaken on what was said as well as on your conclusions about me personally.

    My point was that the words literally mean no more than such-and-such.  Your bolded remark was quite a different claim–merely that they might not have been intended to mean something else.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    If two particular texts conflict, is each “inerrant?” How does that work?

    Obviously not. Show me a real conflict in the texts, and, of course, I will have to change my theology.

    What does “real conflict” mean? I can find two texts that conflict. What makes the conflict “real” to you?

    A contradiction in the meaning of the two texts.

    • #81
  22. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    If two particular texts conflict, is each “inerrant?” How does that work?

    Obviously not. Show me a real conflict in the texts, and, of course, I will have to change my theology.

    What does “real conflict” mean? I can find two texts that conflict. What makes the conflict “real” to you?

    A contradiction in the meaning of the two texts.

    And what, specifically, do you mean by “texts?” Would you consider two different translations of the Gospel of John, for example, to be two different texts? If not, what would qualify two texts as being appropriate for comparison for potential contradiction?

    • #82
  23. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    If two particular texts conflict, is each “inerrant?” How does that work?

    Obviously not. Show me a real conflict in the texts, and, of course, I will have to change my theology.

    What does “real conflict” mean? I can find two texts that conflict. What makes the conflict “real” to you?

    A contradiction in the meaning of the two texts.

    And what, specifically, do you mean by “texts?”  Would you consider two different translations of the Gospel of John, for example, to be two different texts? If not, what would qualify two texts as being appropriate for comparison for potential contradiction?

    No, of course not.  You should read # 57.

    John is one text, with multiple translations.

    Matthew and John are two texts.  John and Luke are two texts.  Galatians and James are two texts.

    (Two contradicting chapters of John would be fine for demonstrating a contradiction as well.)

    • #83
  24. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    I think Satan is the good guy in Genesis. But that’s just me.

    And to some extent, Milton.

    • #84
  25. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    I think Satan is the good guy in Genesis. But that’s just me.

    And to some extent, Milton.

    It’s probably not just you, but it ain’t Milton.

    • #85
  26. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    I think Satan is the good guy in Genesis. But that’s just me.

    And to some extent, Milton.

    It’s probably not just you, but it ain’t Milton.

    Mammom is awesome in Milton. Why Milton write an entire poem about how Satan was awesome?

    • #86
  27. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    I think Satan is the good guy in Genesis. But that’s just me.

    And to some extent, Milton.

    It’s probably not just you, but it ain’t Milton.

    Mammom is awesome in Milton. Why Milton write an entire poem about how Satan was awesome?

    He didn’t. He wrote an entire poem about the Gospel.

    But if you’re asking why Satan has awesome aspects, it’s the same reason he has them in those passages in the Old Testament about him.

    • #87
  28. Brian Scarborough Coolidge
    Brian Scarborough
    @Teeger

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    I think Satan is the good guy in Genesis. But that’s just me.

    And to some extent, Milton.

    The name “Satan” does not appear in Genesis. We only find out that the serpent is [controlled by, or is] Satan from the Revelation 12:9. “That serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world.” 

    But I assume you mean that eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a good thing. Is that right? This is much misunderstood. It is not the tree of knowledge in the intellectual sense. It is referring to experiental knowledge as in “he knows great pain”. Having knowledge of good and evil means that we now experience pain as well as pleasure, calamity as well as prosperity. 

    • #88
  29. Vince Guerra Inactive
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    I think Satan is the good guy in Genesis. But that’s just me.

    And to some extent, Milton.

    Henry, you have no idea about the powers you’re dealing with. Before I was saved I didn’t either. As a dedicated atheist one of my life mottos was from Milton, “It’s better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” But the reality of evil, and its prevalence throughout history convinced me that what the Bible teaches about everything is truth. If pure evil exits (and it does), then there must be an opposite – pure good. Light cannot exist unless there is such a thing as dark. Misery/Expectancy, Fear/Bravery – everything has its opposite and so too does evil. 

    I highly encourage you to explore the source of ultimate good, because the supernatural forces of evil are way more powerful than most of us can comprehend, and making claims like you’ve made here opens the door to demons like Fear, Arrogance, Debauchery, and even Murder. They will have their way in absence of a more powerful Spirit. It’s a toll I pray you and your family will be protected from.  

    • #89
  30. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Bible is the Tanakh and the New Testament.

    The Bible is the Word of G-d, and the original meaning is without error.

    We can say things about the original meaning of an ancient text, and all inerrancy is is a saying about the meaning of an ancient text.

    The critics of inerrancy tend to selectively forget that we can say things about the meaning of an ancient text.

    You take it as a matter of faith that the original texts were perfect and without error. You aren’t arguing that any *existing* Bible — that is, any existing book or translation — is similarly perfect and inerrant.

    That’s good. As with everything to do with religious faith, I think it is best to never claim that a point of faith is objectively testable. Using a definition of the Bible as an abstract ideal text that may or may not exist in physical reality is one way to make the claim untestable, because it allows you to ignore any errors or contradictions found in existing texts as errors of transcription and translation. And that’s perfectly sensible to me: while I don’t believe there ever was an inerrant text, I do believe that there were errors of transcription and translation.

    When I said that “the Bible” is somewhat ambiguous, what I meant is that most people say things like “I read the Bible” or “I believe what it says in the Bible” and, when they say those things, are referring to the words in one or another actual printed translation. They aren’t referring to a believed in but perhaps no longer existing perfect original physical text that may have been misinterpreted and mistranslated down through the ages until it is presented as the King James Bible or the NIV or NASB, or Catholic Bible or any of dozens of others, each with small differences and the occasional contradiction.

    That is the ambiguity to which I was referring. What you mean by “the Bible” isn’t what most people mean.

     

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.