frankcastle said:
Excellent retort obviously you attended all the tutorials for critical thinking. You didn't answer my question/comment.
Which was..... how can you use the bible as evidence/proof on the one hand yet on the other point out all the stuff that couldn't have happened. If you are using the quotes as evidence (e.g. of a gay jesus) than why are the other quotes not credible. How can you just decide which quotes to use as evidence and which to throw out as lies? As for the Holy Spirit try appealing to a higher power than Dollarama..... go to the big boys and shop at Wal-Mart.
Well, What quotes are not credible? They are all from the bible.
I am using the Book that most christains hold as "True" representative and a true authority on their faith. I prove to them, from a book they call the Truth of God, or the heavnly truth of God, that this book is saying these things abotu their so called God. Hence, Since both aruger and defender, are using a book which the defender beleives as authentic , then this is a good source of evidence. A document is only as good as its authenticity in at least the eyes of the accused or the defence. so long as one side holds it as credible document, and the other side has no objection to that ( I have no objection), then its a valid reference point and valid pool for evidence supporting arguments and from these arguments and premises we can draw general or specific conclusions.
I did that, I followed what the bible says, drew my conclusions from the evidence. And That is simply it.
Secondly I do not throw things out by my choice. In the bible , the God says that he is not the author of confusion, and the bible supposedly is coherrent and flows. But There are evidence of the presence of more than 50, 000 contradictions, these contradictions nullifies some passages. But there are some that are intact and as the Vatican says, can reasonably assume that they still have some Holy-attributes to them. SO i stick to these, and I use them to support my arguments as biblical evidence to the arguments.
