I had a guy on here tell me that "It's in the Bible" isn't an argument.... but yet he felt that giving me a link to an article was. So his reading material carries more of an argument than mine?
Isn't it ironic that someone felt that my resources could not be used, but his could? Is it possible that he knows that he can't really disprove the Bible, and is more so saying that it isn't fair of me to use something he can't rationally argue against?
2007-07-31 14:07:06 · 11 answers · asked by Amanda L 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
To the person about incest and murder:
Incest wasn't stated as a sin until well after the world was populated, if you want to talk facts that is, but I understand if you're not interested.
As for murder, God told US to not murder, as unfair as it may seem, we're His people, He can do what He wants with us. It's our own fault that He had to flood the world anyway. :)
2007-07-31 17:10:07 · update #1
Yeah, I know what you mean. They ask a question, then say "Oh, and don't use the Bible for a reference." Well aren't scientists using references from science books, etc.? Then, we need to ask them a question and say "Oh, and don't use anything you know about science for proof." They get all hysterical about it. Double standard????
2007-07-31 14:18:16 · answer #1 · answered by byHisgrace 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You can't use the bible in an argument who doesn't believe the bible has any true meaning because it's not part of their beliefs. A link for a website however isn't part of anyone's beliefs.
2007-07-31 21:22:15 · answer #2 · answered by Netti 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
How many anti-christian and anti-bible people will answer this question with a great set of references?how many with mocking and rediculous remarks?
2007-08-01 00:02:45 · answer #3 · answered by robert p 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He probably gave you articles that were proven or tested... and if he didn't make sure they were tested then he is a hypocritical moron. I am afraid, however, that quoting the Bible isn't proof of the Bible being true, thats called circular thinking and it proves nothing.
2007-07-31 21:14:01 · answer #4 · answered by draconum321 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The buy-bull is not a valid resource for historical world events. If it was, it would be used for teaching in every school in the world. (Which it never will.)
2007-07-31 21:28:30 · answer #5 · answered by r~@~w 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
because the bible is full of fairytale stories and people translate it differently.... how can the bible be taken seriously if everyone has a different meaning? an article however, really cant be interpreted differently.
2007-07-31 21:13:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
One source claims it is absolute because it says it is.
Your source is not supported by facts, I don't know about his.
Your source is proven false on many occasions.
Your source was assembled via men who "voted" on which books to include and which books not to include based off which ones appeared more "holy."
2007-07-31 21:57:40 · answer #7 · answered by meissen97 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
All I can say is;;
"...if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them".(Isa.8:19)"
AND...
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, EVEN TO THE WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, ....he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions ans strife of words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth....." (I Tim. 6:3)
2007-07-31 21:59:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
tell me how a planet gets populated with two people and no incest...
no???
tell me how god COMMANDED that 'THOU SHALL NOT MURDER' but still floods the planet, killing off everyone but Noah and his family...
disproved???
lol...
2007-07-31 21:30:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
No. It's not ironic.
You have a single source that has undergone heavy editing in the absence of original sources.
He produced a citation.
2007-07-31 21:11:00 · answer #10 · answered by novangelis 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋