I love to exchange and discuss with people with different opinions, as long as it's respectful! I live in a very secular country, most of my friends are atheists, and we have long and very interesting discussions.

Regarding biblical inconsistencies, we believe that the Bible is not identical to the Word of God; rather, the Word of God is found within the Bible. This may sound like wordplay, but the distinction is fundamental. If the Bible were literally the Word of God, then every word and every comma would have to be absolute truth, because God cannot lie. This is the position held by many evangelical churches.

We, however, believe that God speaks to us through the Bible. God spoke to men and women, and those people wrote down what they understood. Their texts express the Word of God within the cultural frameworks of their own times and societies. There is no other way it could be: as finite human beings, we cannot directly comprehend the infinite with our limited minds. It is simply impossible. As a result, authors from different periods and backgrounds sometimes expressed different ideas.

For example, Genesis contains two creation accounts, in chapters 1 and 2. People in antiquity were aware of these differences, yet they preserved both accounts because they understood that the truth was not necessarily found in one account or the other, but in the dialogue between them. The Bible is full of apparent contradictions because it is a dialogue between a plural humanity and God, rather than a monologue spoken by God in a single, uniform voice.

Our task today is to read these texts through a particular interpretive key—a metaphor associated with Luther. In Christ, God gave us life out of love for humanity. Therefore, when reading any biblical passage, we should ask ourselves: Could a loving God—one who gave us life out of love—say this? If the answer is yes, then the passage represents a legitimate, though not necessarily infallible, interpretation. If the answer is no, then it is not a legitimate interpretation and should be rejected.

To distinguish between different legitimate interpretations, we use the tools of science, especially history, linguistics, and philosophy. History helps us better understand the cultures and circumstances of the biblical authors. Linguistics helps us translate the original Hebrew and Greek texts more accurately. These original languages have authority; the King James Version, by contrast, is only one translation among many—and it is an English translation, a language that is not central to our approach. Philosophy helps us ensure that the theology emerging from our interpretation is internally coherent.

Religion is not about accepting a simple, complete truth without questioning it or examining it through reason. That is closer to a cult. Religion is a series of questions that people investigate together using shared intellectual tools. Religion is not the enemy of critical thought; rather, critical thought is necessary for religion to function properly.

A warning about the site you used though: we Protestants lack a central authority which could differentiate acceptable and unacceptable theologies, unlike the Catholic church with the Papacy. Every Protestant must find its own way. So we are veeeeeeery divided, it's a complicated mess. “Reformed” for example means something different in the Anglo-Saxon world and in the old continent. My tradition is more like what is called “Presbyterianism” in America. At least I think so, I'm not a specialist of American Christianity. If I was American, I would probably be a member of the United Church of Christ but others seem cool too, like the Presbyterian Church or the Lutheran Church. But I wouldn't be a member of the United Reformed Churches in North America which published the site you cited.