(December 31, 2011 at 12:21 am)chipan Wrote: actually i said by your logic, if you would have read my post thoroughly. i do not agree with this logic however if you do, then at the same time you must agree with what i used b/c it uses the same logic.
But it isn't by my logic at all, it's yours. You do agree with it, because it's why you're refusing to address the rest of the stuff in my link. YOU said that the reason YOU don't have to address all the other points is because you believe one part is not credible which invalidates the rest of the website. Did you, or did you not say that?
(December 30, 2011 at 2:14 pm)chipan Wrote: i don't need to do the rest of them, if one passage is not credable from that biased site, then obviously others will be as well.
Yes, you did. So, since you have made the above statement (and since the Bible is certainly a biased document), answer my question. If someone could find one passage that was not credible, would that invalidate the entire Bible? If not, why are you applying different rules to the Bible than you are to evilbible.com?
For the purposes of spelling it out (because you've demonstrated that you need this to be done at all times), it isn't my logic and not a statement I agree with. A website with a bias could stretch the definitions of human sacrifice to its limits for the sake of labouring their point; this would not mean that all their content was void as a result. The one example you chose to address (Abraham/Isaac) is probably the easiest one for a Christian to get out of by saying 'Oh it was a test, he never would have let him go through with it', not that it's much of an excuse. However, our fellow poster Minimalist asked you to explain the context of a passage he had selected and how it was ok, which as far as I can see you have not addressed. So why not give that one a go?
