Atheism is "cool"

Ruskie4Rent

PDN wrote: »

Now just because these academic disciplines are 'arts' it does not follow that they are completely subjective. There is certainly more of a subjective element that in science, but they all have recognised methodologies and only an absolute buffoon woould dismiss all philosophers, literary critics, linguists and historians as sophists necause they insist on using objective standards in their 'arts'.

Any conclusion on what the writers of the bible were trying to say, can only come from consensus among academics. Their conclusion should still be considered subjective though, because no real truth can be drawn from that interpretation.
Much like the conclusions drawn from Shakespeare.
A load of film critics can be sure what David Lynch is trying to say in mullholland drive, but that is not to say they are certain(neither is David Lynch, probably).

Not only can it be done, it is expected of every history student. If a history student allows his righteous indignation over stuff like the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide to ignore recognised methodology then he will fail to graduate - end of story. The same is true in biblical studies. That's why an atheist, a Jew, and an evangelical can study the Book of Hebrews and all come to the same conclusions as to the message that the author was trying to convey. Whether they personally agree with the author, of course, is another matter entirely.

A conclusion from a historian can be considered more objective though. In history, you are trying to prove facts. There can only be one, definite right answer. To gain an objective conclusion, you'd need numerous primary sources backing it up, otherwise its worthless.

PDN

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Way to evade, since what you're mostly doing is posting lots of patronising willywaving bluster and sly slurs then I'll have to agree with Ph. I've seen plenty of your type on other forums so quite frankly I can't be bothered wasting my time with you anymore. And unless I'm very mistaken I can also guess what your response will be so just talk to the hand or whatever.

How strange. I deal with your points one by one and you get so offended by a bit of gentle sarcasm that you refuse to answer me and then accuse me of evasion?

Come on now, I'm one lone Christian debating with, and outnumbered by, a bunch of atheists, some of whom wish to engage in robust debate and one or two who prefer mudslinging abuse. There's plenty of patronising comments and sly slurs about theists in this forum every day - yet some posters act like an offended maiden aunt if I enter into debate with you and give as good as I get?

You, Mr Toaster, conflated two issues (the exegesis of a text which should be conducted as objectively as possible, and the subjective matter of conducting one's life by a particular religious belief) even though I had treated them as two separate issues and clearly differentiated between them. You pretend to be offended when I assume you've done this accidentally, and then get all snotty because I then say you must have done it deliberately.

Furthermore, in a discussion that centres on something being an academic subject, most people would recognise that, by saying it is an 'art' rather than a 'science' that we are using academic terminology. Even little Stevie Wonder (who isn't so little these days) could have seen a reference to "the arts and the sciences". You, however, try to pretend that 'art' in that context refers to picture appreciation. If you were doing this deliberately then you are engaging in the same kind of 'sly slurs' (nice alliteration) that you pretend to find so offensive in my posts. In that case my response is a fitting reply to such hypocrisy. If you were doing it accidentally then my response was actually very restrained since your 'painting appreciation' comments rank as a blooper worthy of their own TV slot as presented by Dennis Nordern.

As for your comments about seeing 'my type' on other forums, I'm sure we could generate much more light than heat by addressing each other's posts and leaving the modding to a guy called Dades who actually sits in the front seat.

Dades

Um, less willywaving and conflating everyone.

If it becomes too pointless or frustrating to address a post, then don't post a riposte.

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

Um, less willywaving

I hear they are not adverse to such rhythmic gyrations over in the Sex and Sexuality forum.





I'll stop trolling now.

studiorat

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I hear they are not adverse to such rhythmic gyrations over in the Sex and Sexuality forum.





I'll stop trolling now.

I was looking for that forum and I ended up here, haven't been able to find the door since.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I sincerely believe that gives me a motivation to ensure that I am understanding the Bible correctly.

You've already said that your interpretation of the bible gives you a reason to stay alive, while in previous posts, you've said that the bible is perfect and free from error (in its initial version, with no information on what you feel may have changed (if anything) to make it what it is now), you also base your entire professional life, and I assume, much of your personal life, upon your interpretation and you've spent an enormous amount of time here on boards defending all of the above.

Bearing all of these presuppositions in mind, I don't believe that you, or indeed almost any other human who has invested in a ideology so deeply that they believe their very life depends upon it, could approach their chosen ideology with any sincere intent to disprove it.

In that, your pov is no different to that of most religious people -- by and large, you seek confirmation of your views, not disproof and consequently, seem unwilling to take the intellectual and emotional steps needed to make a genuine inquiry into your chosen ideology.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

You've already said that your interpretation of the bible gives you a reason to stay alive, while in previous posts, you've said that the bible is perfect and free from error (in its initial version, with no information on what you feel may have changed (if anything) to make it what it is now), you also base your entire professional life, and I assume, much of your personal life, upon your interpretation and you've spent an enormous amount of time here on boards defending all of the above.

Bearing all of these presuppositions in mind, I don't believe that you, or indeed almost any other human who has invested in a ideology so deeply that they believe their very life depends upon it, could approach their chosen ideology with any sincere intent to disprove it.

In that, your pov is no different to that of most religious people -- by and large, you seek confirmation of your views, not disproof and consequently, seem unwilling to take the intellectual and emotional steps needed to make a genuine inquiry into your chosen ideology.

And to be fair most people are like this, which is why proper methodologies, such as the scientific method, are designed specifically with this failing of humanity in mind. It isn't that these learning frameworks have better people in them, they have the same flawed biased people, but that they are better methodologies.

The issue I have with the field of theology and Biblical study is not necessarily that everyone brings their own opinions and biases to the table, but that the methodologies around these areas take little or no steps to address this, and in fact often embrace it as some how a good thing.

How much of theology is supported solely by personal opinion and testimony alone, something you would never get in a scientific field.

And then people start going on about the limitations of science!

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Um, less willywaving and conflating everyone.

If it becomes too pointless or frustrating to address a post, then don't post a riposte.

The mention of 'willywaving' and 'conflating' in one sentence produced an unfortunate mental image that I am praying will not stick in my mind longer than necessary.

As a theist guest on this forum may I say how much I appreciate the intellectual sparring and some of the well thought and carefully constructed barbs that come in my direction. Of course some posters are more Kim Wilde than Oscar Wilde, but that's more to do with an imperfect world and as such belongs more in the theodicy thread.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Of course some posters are more Kim Wilde than Oscar Wilde, but that's more to do with an imperfect world and as such belongs more in the theodicy thread.

Well, if everyone in this world was Oscar Wilde we'd have bigger problems than internet jibes.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Well, if everyone in this world was Oscar Wilde we'd have bigger problems than internet jibes.

BTW, anyone under the age of 30 who has to google to find out who Kim Wilde might be - please ensure you spell 'Kim' with an 'i' rather than 'Kym'. :eek:

CerebralCortex

You realise everyone under 30 is going to look up Kym Wilde because of what you said?

The Mad Hatter

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You realise everyone under 30 is going to look up Kym Wilde because of what you said?

*does*

Predictably enough, it's porn.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You realise everyone under 30 is going to look up Kym Wilde because of what you said?

That is down to free will - so also belongs in the theodicy thread!

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue I have with the field of theology and Biblical study is not necessarily that everyone brings their own opinions and biases to the table, but that the methodologies around these areas take little or no steps to address this, and in fact often embrace it as some how a good thing.

While posting earlier on, I dropped by wiki's list of cognitive biases. After reading the list quickly, it struck me that every single bias listed is seen, as you say, in some way -- refracted or not -- in religious thought. Almost all remain unaddressed, if not actively swept under the carpet. The list is worth a look.

Wicknight wrote: »

And then people start going on about the limitations of science!

Jesus and Mo looked into this recently:

Dades

robindch wrote: »

While posting earlier on, I dropped by wiki's list of cognitive biases ... The list is worth a look.

It certainly is. Wow!

Thought this one was cute:

Hawthorne effect — the tendency of people to perform or perceive differently when they know that they are being observed.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

That is down to free will - so also belongs in the theodicy thread!

I knew you'd say something to that effect

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I knew you'd say something to that effect

Predictability - it's a necessary characteristic of the best possible world. If a solid wooden branch turned to foam rubber when we tried to hit somebody with it then, while it's true that nobody could hurt each other, the world would be so unpredictable that we couldn't function. So, once again, this belongs in the theodicy thread.

Damn! If everything relates to theodicy then how did we manage to take that thread off topic in the first place?

seamus

Dades wrote: »

It certainly is. Wow!

Thought this one was cute:

Hawthorne effect — the tendency of people to perform or perceive differently when they know that they are being observed.

I was reading about this one recently ("Bad Science" - good book, quite heavy).

Basically (for anyone who doesn't want to go through the whole thing), they were checking whether factory workers were more productive under better lighting conditions. So they told the workers they were being observed and upped the lighting. And productivity went up.
Someone then had the good sense to put the lights back to normal and measure again. And productivity remained higher than before the experiment.

They performed better just because they knew they were being watched.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Predictability - it's a necessary characteristic of the best possible world. If a solid wooden branch turned to foam rubber when we tried to hit somebody with it then, while it's true that nobody could hurt each other, the world would be so unpredictable that we couldn't function. So, once again, this belongs in the theodicy thread.

Damn! If everything relates to theodicy then how did we manage to take that thread off topic in the first place?

You've lost me?

Goduznt Xzst

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You've lost me?

He's making the irrelevant and odd observation that you are able to predict his relative response in an internet forum because we live in a universe of physical constants.

robindch wrote: »

You've already said that your interpretation of the bible gives you a reason to stay alive, while in previous posts, you've said that the bible is perfect and free from error (in its initial version, with no information on what you feel may have changed (if anything) to make it what it is now), you also base your entire professional life, and I assume, much of your personal life, upon your interpretation and you've spent an enormous amount of time here on boards defending all of the above.

Bearing all of these presuppositions in mind, I don't believe that you, or indeed almost any other human who has invested in a ideology so deeply that they believe their very life depends upon it, could approach their chosen ideology with any sincere intent to disprove it.

In that, your pov is no different to that of most religious people -- by and large, you seek confirmation of your views, not disproof and consequently, seem unwilling to take the intellectual and emotional steps needed to make a genuine inquiry into your chosen ideology.

Good post. I'm curious as to why PDN overstepped it?

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Good post. I'm curious as to why PDN overstepped it?

Because two of you guys have already had hissy fits when I pointed out how you conflated two separate issues. I didn't see much point in pointing out the same error again and creating a troika of offended atheists (although, to be fair, Robin is one of the more mature posters on this forum). However, I would not like to think of you hanging on tenterhooks all evening waiting for my answer - so here goes ...

Robin has stated his opinion, and he is entitled to it. However, it missed the mark for the following reasons.

1. I don't think I did say that my interpretation of the Bible gives me a reason to stay alive. Robin didn't provide any link, but I would think that I said my Christian faith had kept me alive. Two separate issues, conveniently conflated into one for the purposes of rhetoric.

2. 99.9% of biblical exegesis has nothing to do with the issues of biblical inerrancy or of anything that is essential to salvation. Most of it is much more mundane than that.

3. I have already changed my beliefs considerably due to objective exegesis of Scripture, including giving up my job, house and income. Therefore Robin's claim about my unwillingness to change due to investing my professional life in something is untruthful and contrary to the evidence.

4. If I became convinced that biblical inerrancy was false then I could continue to live as millions of Christians already do, choosing to accept some of the Bible while ignoring the bits I didn't like. In fact you could argue that would make my life considerably easier than my present position.

Robin is simply adopting an age-old tactic of implying that those on the opposing side in a discussion are closed-minded and therefore there is no need to listen to them. I didn't actually think that anyone would fall for such a line nowadays - but you, Goduznt Xzst, for probably the first and last time in your life, have managed to prove me wrong.

pH

OK we got to here:

---

PDN wrote: »

As for your comments about seeing 'my type' on other forums, I'm sure we could generate much more light than heat by addressing each other's posts and leaving the modding to a guy called Dades who actually sits in the front seat.

Dades wrote: »

Um, less willywaving and conflating everyone.

If it becomes too pointless or frustrating to address a post, then don't post a riposte.

---

And I shut up.

PDN wrote: »

Of course some posters are more Kim Wilde than Oscar Wilde, but that's more to do with an imperfect world and as such belongs more in the theodicy thread.

PDN wrote: »

Because two of you guys have already had hissy fits when I pointed out how you conflated two separate issues.
..
I didn't actually think that anyone would fall for such a line nowadays - but you, Goduznt Xzst, for probably the first and last time in your life, have managed to prove me wrong

OK I'm confused here, it's obviously fine for PDN to chuck insults around, so I'm asking is it OK to trade insults with PDN as long as I hide my insults in some larger post that pretends to address some issues? Because as far as I can see he can continue to make snide childish comments about 'posters', yet as soon as I or anyone dare respond Dades will once again step in, but if that doesn't happen is PDN is free to insult all and sundry?

daveharnett

partyguinness wrote: »

That is something I ve wanted to do for awhile...officially leave the Catholic Church...I am not religious and have no time for it..I dont believe in God/Satan..and all that jazz.

Of course I was put throught the whole Baptism, Communion, Confirmation craic...so how do I now get out??

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58227057&postcount=125

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You've lost me?

Don't worry, sometimes I get so far off topic that I lose myself. Once you get past 45 it all starts to go downhill.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Robin is simply adopting an age-old tactic of implying that those on the opposing side in a discussion are closed-minded and therefore there is no need to listen to them.

No actually he isn't.

He is correctly pointing out the flaws in the methodology you cling to as some how academic and proper, while also pointing out the flaws apply to everyone, not simply Christians.

So you isn't attacking you as close-minded, he is attacking these methodologies as not recognising that most people are to some degree close-minded and that proper methodologies need to realise this and deal with it because human opinion is inherently untrustworthy, which these theological methodologies don't

You on the other hand are attacking him, without properly dealing with the points he has been making, as being simply argumentative with no substance.

You are in fact saying that Robin is not saying anything worth listening to because he is motived simply to attack you.

Not only are you misrepresenting what he is saying about Biblical study and your good self, but you are doing the very thing you are claiming shouldn't be done.

PDN

Wicknight, how do you get this ...

Wicknight wrote: »

He is correctly pointing out the flaws in the methodology you cling to as some how academic and proper, while also pointing out the flaws apply to everyone, not simply Christians.

out of this?

Robin wrote:

In that, your pov is no different to that of most religious people -- by and large, you seek confirmation of your views, not disproof and consequently, seem unwilling to take the intellectual and emotional steps needed to make a genuine inquiry into your chosen ideology.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

1. I don't think I did say that my interpretation of the Bible gives me a reason to stay alive. Robin didn't provide any link, but I would think that I said my Christian faith had kept me alive. Two separate issues, conveniently conflated into one for the purposes of rhetoric.

Your Christian faith is a "separate issue" to how you interpret the Bible?

Your Christian faith does not rely on an interpretation of the Bible? You learnt and became a follow of Jesus independently of the Bible?

PDN wrote: »

2. 99.9% of biblical exegesis has nothing to do with the issues of biblical inerrancy or of anything that is essential to salvation. Most of it is much more mundane than that.

Yes but Biblical inerrancy is an example of a frame work that many approach the issue of Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis with.

If one has already concluded that the Bible cannot be wrong this shapes the set of possible interpretations of what the authors of the Bible are saying or meant.

PDN wrote: »

3. I have already changed my beliefs considerably due to objective exegesis of Scripture, including giving up my job, house and income.

Well as I think most people here would agree, I don't think that is what we would consider "considerably" changing your beliefs. You didn't exactly reach the conclusion that Jesus never existed and gone back to atheism.

Changing from believing that the world was 6,000 years old to accepting that the world is much older is not a fundamental shift in beliefs. You have given no indication that the fundamentals of your faith, nor the benefits it provides you (the important bit when discussing bias and motivation) such as the sense of purpose, the sense of a caring god, promise of the after life have fundamentally changed since you began studying the Bible closer.

But ultimately this doesn't matter.

A methodology that requires that the rest of us trust that you (or anyone) aren't biased in your approach is inherently flawed. That is Robin's ultimately point, a point you seem to have missed or are ignoring.

You can proclaim that you and all the other Biblical hermeneutics students are not approaching the Bible with bias, or that you are motivated purely for truth, that it is very important to you to find the truth over confirmation of your beliefs. All this might actually be true, or it might not. The point is that no one else can determine this.

PDN wrote: »

4. If I became convinced that biblical inerrancy was false then I could continue to live as millions of Christians already do, choosing to accept some of the Bible while ignoring the bits I didn't like. In fact you could argue that would make my life considerably easier than my present position.

Or you could argue that such a realisation would destroy your faith and your life, leading to you becoming miserable and depressed.

Who knows. You certainly wouldn't be the first Christian to go through miserable depression as a consequence of doubt in the truth of their faith.

The point is we don't have to, or shouldn't have to, know either way. How crushing results are to your life should be irrelevant. The results of study should be independent of the opinion of the person who came up with the results.

This is not the case in theology, hermeneutics or exegesis

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Wicknight, how do you get this ...


out of this?

I didn't.

Unlike what you appear to be doing, I am reading all of Robin's posts in this thread rather than just selectively picking the bits form individual posts that I think I can make snide dismissive remarks about :rolleyes:

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't.

Unlike what you appear to be doing, I am reading all of Robin's posts in this thread rather than just selectively picking the bits form individual posts that I think I can make snide dismissive remarks about :rolleyes:

I made a comment with specific reference to Robin's general characterisation of Christians as unwilling to enquire honestly into their ideology. However, you are now saying that Robin wasn't saying that, and your basis for that assertion is that, somewhere else in the thread, Robin was making another point entirely.

Now, I am sorely tempted to answer all your points by accusing you of deliberately misunderstanding me on the basis that elsewhere in the thread I was discussing an entirely different subject. But I think one of us at least should try to conduct a debate in a rational manner. So I will address my comments to the relevant points.

Your Christian faith is a "separate issue" to how you interpret the Bible?

Your Christian faith does not rely on an interpretation of the Bible? You learnt and became a follow of Jesus independently of the Bible?

I certainly didn't become a follower of Jesus by attempting to apply exegetical methodology as objectively as possible to the Bible as is taught in biblical studies. Therefore, to any reasonable person who isn't indulging in sophistry or spoiling for a fight, the two are certainly separate issues.

Yes but Biblical inerrancy is an example of a frame work that many approach the issue of Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis with.

If one has already concluded that the Bible cannot be wrong this shapes the set of possible interpretations of what the authors of the Bible are saying or meant.

No, all of us approach data in any subject with certain presuppositions, but we should be ready to change our minds if the data contradicts our presuppositions. That is how I approach the Bible. Initially I did not hold to any theory of inerrancy, but my study of the Bible led me to consider the idea. The more I examined the data, the stronger my conclusion became. However, as with all my beliefs, it is subject to change if the evidence warrants it.

BTW, the majority of those who approach the issue of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis in an academic setting do not agree with biblical inerrancy. In fact I am one of the dissenters who you referred to in a previous post as being 'ostracised' in the field of theology and biblical studies. So why are you using the presence of dissenters like me as a stick to beat an academic field that you have previously criticised for its intolerance of dissenters? Don't you see the hypocrisy of your position?

Well as I think most people here would agree, I don't think that is what we would consider "considerably" changing your beliefs. You didn't exactly reach the conclusion that Jesus never existed and gone back to atheism

Ah, so change is not real unless it means changing to a set of beliefs which, purely by coincidence, happen to be those that Wicknight subscribes to? And you have the nerve to call Christians closed-minded?

A methodology that requires that the rest of us trust that you (or anyone) aren't biased in your approach is inherently flawed. That is Robin's ultimately point, a point you seem to have missed or are ignoring.

You can proclaim that you and all the other Biblical hermeneutics students are not approaching the Bible with bias, or that you are motivated purely for truth, that it is very important to you to find the truth over confirmation of your beliefs. All this might actually be true, or it might not. The point is that no one else can determine this.

No, you wouldn't be required to trust me or anyone else if you actually had the faintest idea about the subject which we are discussing.

Plenty of people can determine if I, as a Christian, am approaching the Bible with bias. My professors at University, all of whom were qualified in their field and none of whom shared my beliefs, determined that very fact before they allowed me to graduate.

However, you feel that you know better than the academic establishment, Universities etc. that recognise Biblical Studies as a legitimate field of study that utilises objective methodology and is subject to appropriate peer review etc. While I admire your hubris, you will, I hope, understand that I find your pronouncements less than convincing.

Or you could argue that such a realisation would destroy your faith and your life, leading to you becoming miserable and depressed.

Who knows. You certainly wouldn't be the first Christian to go through miserable depression as a consequence of doubt in the truth of their faith.

More sophistry and conflation. Belief in inerrancy is hardly essential to Christian faith. Many, probably most, Christians do not believe in inerrancy but are hardly miserable or depressed.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I made a comment with specific reference to Robin's general characterisation of Christians as unwilling to enquire honestly into their ideology. However, you are now saying that Robin wasn't saying that, and your basis for that assertion is that, somewhere else in the thread, Robin was making another point entirely.

No, I'm not

It would perhaps be easier if you actually read the posts here, rather than concluding we are all anti-christian militant atheists all trying to get you and then assumed the posts reflected that.

The point has been made a few times by a number of posters that it is highly doubtful that Christians could approach the study of the Bible in a non-biased fashion and reach conclusions about it that are made irrespective of any negative effect they could have on their religion.

The point was also made that this isn't entirely surprising because Christians are humans

Most, if not all, humans take bias into the study of something, particularly when a particular position is vital to a certain outlook on life they have. The more vital something is the far more likely the person has a conscious or unconscious bias at assessment.

Humans are particularly bad a assessing things in a non-biased fashion, though often they ignore this problem (see Robin's very interesting list posted earlier).

It therefore is necessary for our methodologies of learning to not only expect this but to attempt to compensate for this problem in the very fundamentals of how it is structured. Science does this. Stuff like hermeneutics, doesn't.

You appear to wish to use this point (which I'm sure you would agree with if it was any other religion apart from your own) to make out that Robin, myself and others are making some vast unfair attack on the integrity of Christians (specifically), probably so you can dismiss this as anti-Christian bashing and ignore it whole heartily.

You have (poorly) attempted to convince the rest of us that while your Christian faith is clearly central to your entire existence and outlook towards life, love and the pursuit of happiness, this in no way has ever effected any part of the Bible you have ever read and in fact it is precisely because you value your Christian faith so much you would seek only the truth in the Bible because you wouldn't want to live a lie.

Needless to say that wasn't particularly convincing. I think it swayed anyone away from the original position that humans are particularly bad a assessing things in a non-biased fashion, though often they ignore this problem.

But more to the point you claiming you are in fact not biased is irrelevant because it comes down to the rest of us believing you, and what the heck does my opinion of whether you are genuinely non-biased have to do with anything. I could be just as wrong or biased about my opinion of you.

This is the fundamental point.

PDN wrote: »

I certainly didn't become a follower of Jesus by attempting to apply exegetical methodology as objectively as possible to the Bible as is taught in biblical studies.

Wonderful, but you know perfectly well that isn't what we were saying.

Your Christian faith is based on an interpretation of the Christian Bible. To imply that you can then read the Christian Bible and study it without your Christian faith being effected the framework that you study the Bible in, is nonsense. And you know that which is why you are now trying to steer quickly away from that.

PDN wrote: »

No, all of us approach data in any subject with certain presuppositions, but we should be ready to change our minds if the data contradicts our presuppositions. That is how I approach the Bible.

Well no offence PDN but I don't think anyone here believes that you are "ready to change your mind", given that changing your mind could have a seriously negative effect on your life and mental outlook.

But again that is ultimately irrelevant.

A methodology shouldn't require that people trust that you are ready to change your mind. The methology should assume you aren't, and work from that assumption. You must demonstrate your point on the assumption that you are completely biased and lying through the teeth about your independence.

It certainly should not rely on the rest of us trusting you.

PDN wrote: »

BTW, the majority of those who approach the issue of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis in an academic setting do not agree with biblical inerrancy.

You are again completely missing the point.

What they agree or don't agree with should be irrelevant.

PDN wrote: »

Ah, so change is not real unless it means changing to a set of beliefs which, purely by coincidence, happen to be those that Wicknight subscribes to? And you have the nerve to call Christians closed-minded?

No, change would be change that requires you to abandon the beliefs that provide you comfort and support.

Flipping between details of Christian faith is largely irrelevant because you end up in the same position of religious support and outlook.

It is like changing your mind between whether your girlfriend like chocolates better than flowers, when you used to think she liked flowers. That is not the same as changing your mind to believe she is now shagging your boss.

PDN wrote: »

No, you wouldn't be required to trust me or anyone else if you actually had the faintest idea about the subject which we are discussing.

I think if that was true you would have spent the last few pages explaining how the various fields of Bible study do not require those participating in the fields to come to the study with a non-bias position, rather than spending the last few pages trying to convince us that they come to the field with non-biased positions.

PDN wrote: »

More sophistry and conflation. Belief in inerrancy is hardly essential to Christian faith. Many, probably most, Christians do not believe in inerrancy but are hardly miserable or depressed.

That is kinda the point, why the idea that you changed your mind of Biblical inerrancy is hardly an good example of how you are facing up to the challenges of studying the Bible without the fundamentals of your faith effecting your judgement