Back here, you can see the classic example of what passes for intellectual discourse with one Jason/"Jinx McHue:"
Someone: [Well-reasoned and comprehensive argument.]
Jinx: Well, you're just ignorant, that's all.
Apparently, your humble correspondent (uh, that would be me) is just, like, totally ignorant of things theological such as the concept of Biblical innerancy and stuff like that. Apparently, in Jinx's world, being a Christian means he is the de facto expert on things Christian, while those of us who are not cannot possibly have anything to say on the subject.
(This attitude is especially amusing since Christians in the United States are, as a lot, stupefying ignorant of even the basics of Christianity. And we're not talking deep, philosophical issues -- we're talking that they barely know half of the Ten Commandments, simple stuff like that.)
So, against my better judgment, I'm going to invite Jinx to enlighten us all on Biblical innerancy and how, by whatever definition he chooses to defend, none of this constitutes errors, discrepancies or contradictions. But there will be rules.
As regular readers have already noticed, Jinx has a nasty habit of making claims, being called on them, refusing to address those criticisms and storming off in a huff, spewing ignorant epithets all the way. So here's what's going to happen.
I'm inviting Jinx to explain what he means by "Biblical inerrancy." If he does so by actually addressing the issue, I'll allow the conversation to continue. The instant he tries to tap dance his way around the issue or avoids the subject at hand, the dialogue is over.
Jinx (and other Bible-pounding wanks like him) love to don the mantle of Christian martyrdom, and bitch and whine about how they're being "censored" by bloggers who, finally fed up with their sanctimonious stupidity, simply start deleting their comments. Well, now's his chance.
I'm officially inviting Jinx to submit here, as long as he addresses the issue, and only if he addresses the issue. Now we'll see if Jinx is actually capable of intellectual discourse, or if he's just a typical Christian blowhard. Place your bets.
Jinx, the ball is in your court.
BY THE WAY, one common apologetic to dismiss obvious contradictions between the Old and New Testaments is to claim that the rules in the NT somehow supersede those in the OT. People trying this strategy will generally point to NT passages like this:
Matthew 5:38-39: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
to bolster their claim that Jesus is obviously rewriting the rules. Sadly, that flies in the face of verses earlier in that same chapter:
Matthew 5:17-19: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
In short, Christians try to explain away numerous discrepancies in Scripture with a strategy that is, in fact, contradicted by Scripture. You have to love the irony.