LogFAQs > #896522695

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Conservative politics topic 2: The sacred TRUTH Trumps all lies
Mr Lasastryke 02/21/18 7:28:04 PM #325:	StealThisSheen posted... Well, for one, you tried to tell Moogle that he couldn't believe "Jesus is God" if he wasn't following oneness pentecostalism. never happened. i wasn't attacking moogle as i don't think he's even a christian (is he?). i just said that the only subset of christians who believe "jesus is god" are the ones who adhere to oneness pentecostalism. obviously this is in comparison with other subsets - i'm not saying there isn't anyone in the world who believes "jesus is god" but doesn't adhere to oneness pentecostalism. That's an unfair way to argue, because instead of presenting any evidence or context as to why their interpretation is wrong, you're simply using their lack of tangible facts to discredit them for apparently no real reason, when the whole thing is based on belief to begin with. i don't get this at all. you're right in that i say there's a lack of tangible facts, then you agree with me (saying "the whole thing is based on belief to begin with"), but then you also say it's an unfair way to argue??? it's like if i say i don't like john because he hates black people, and then you say "well obviously, he's in the KKK and everyone in the KKK hates black people. that's an unfair way to attack john." how on earth does this make logical sense? (and no, i'm not saying christians are klansmen.) it's almost like you think that pointing out how little we can trust the bible as a source is "cheating" or something, and that i should only be allowed to criticize the bible by pointing out flaws in the text itself. i get this line of thinking when we're talking about, say, wikipedia - i always hate it when people go "LOL WIKIPEDIA" when trying to discredit an argument, when the vast majority of information on the site is actually demonstrably correct. but... the bible isn't wikipedia. i think it's perfectly valid for me to put tons of question marks besides pretty much every verse in the bible. i don't see what's "unfair" about it at all. --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:896522695] in Conservati... [t:76313985]...</cite> <quote><cite>StealThisSheen posted...</cite> <quote>Well, for one, you tried to tell Moogle that he couldn't believe "Jesus is God" if he wasn't following oneness pentecostalism.</quote> never happened. i wasn't attacking moogle as i don't think he's even a christian (is he?). i just said that the only subset of christians who believe "jesus is god" are the ones who adhere to oneness pentecostalism. obviously this is in comparison with other subsets - i'm not saying there isn't anyone in the world who believes "jesus is god" but doesn't adhere to oneness pentecostalism. <quote>That's an unfair way to argue, because instead of presenting any evidence or context as to why their interpretation is wrong, you're simply using their lack of tangible facts to discredit them for apparently no real reason, when the whole thing is based on belief to begin with.</quote> i don't get this at all. you're right in that i say there's a lack of tangible facts, then you agree with me (saying "the whole thing is based on belief to begin with"), but then you also say it's an unfair way to argue??? it's like if i say i don't like john because he hates black people, and then you say "well obviously, he's in the KKK and everyone in the KKK hates black people. that's an unfair way to attack john." how on earth does this make logical sense? (and no, i'm not saying christians are klansmen.) it's almost like you think that pointing out how little we can trust the bible as a source is "cheating" or something, and that i should only be allowed to criticize the bible by pointing out flaws in the text itself. i get this line of thinking when we're talking about, say, wikipedia - i always hate it when people go "LOL WIKIPEDIA" when trying to discredit an argument, when the vast majority of information on the site is actually demonstrably correct. but... the bible isn't wikipedia. i think it's perfectly valid for me to put tons of question marks besides pretty much every verse in the bible. i don't see what's "unfair" about it at all. --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1