To be blunt: you are an "aspie" who was inducted into a cult-like organization. By any metric that does not look at expected earnings, that would be considered a glaring red flag. Of course, I am not the type of person who evaluates others in this manner.
I completely flew off the handle that morning when making those posts, so it was probably justified, alas.
Anyway, my own contribution to the thread (though one would likely have to read the whole thing for context:
The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.
You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation. One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.
Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind.
I am not King James Only.
I am not trying to defend a canon.
Believing that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God necessarily involves defending a canon. Unless you wouldn't mind also considering the Apocrypha inerrant, but I have a feeling you wouldn't go there.
Whether the Apocrypha is or is not part of the Bible is irrelevant to the point I was making.
