Ahh, noobs..
Where to begin deconstructing the same old argument under a brand new name. It like you guys were assembled at the same factory.
You made the same claim Esq. made in his post. 'That Jesus did not condemn Homosexuality.' I answered this claim with a reference that discredit the very claim both you and Esq made.(in his thread because it beat your by two or three hours)
If you do not believe your claim was the same as Esq, or my rebuttle did not answer yours, then what else am I to assume other then you did not understand (or bother to read) what was written in the other thread? Further more why start another thread on the exact same topic if there is a active thread on the same subject?? (Bad form old sport) So again there are several indicators that point to the fact that you do not comprehend what is going on in the other thread. So I simply offered to catch you up on what has already been discussed today. Try not to read too far into a simple offer. If what you represent is valid then you need not fear reprisal.
once you start quoting the bible then the bible becomes a Valid point of reference.. It's like you misquoting a passage from Shakespeare's Othello and then saying you can not use the works of Shakespeare to correct your misquoted mess.
If you don't want to have a biblically based discussion the amend you posts to reflect your desire, otherwise know your in violation of a few different logical fallacies, ranging from moving the goal post, to good ole atheist standby, the strawman, to the good old fashion red herring. (The staple of any 'true atheist' diet.) you may wish to argue in circles but we tend to raise the bar here at AF.
Where to begin deconstructing the same old argument under a brand new name. It like you guys were assembled at the same factory.
(January 19, 2014 at 11:00 pm)Boris Karloff Wrote: If you stated "I have a stance in response to your argument" I would want to hear it. Instead, you said "do you not understand how it disproves yours?" This indicates a certain amount of arrogance that you do not want to have a discussion, but rather force your point.if I wanted to force a point I would not have asked if you understood what you have attempted to dismiss without addressing anything I wrote.
You made the same claim Esq. made in his post. 'That Jesus did not condemn Homosexuality.' I answered this claim with a reference that discredit the very claim both you and Esq made.(in his thread because it beat your by two or three hours)
If you do not believe your claim was the same as Esq, or my rebuttle did not answer yours, then what else am I to assume other then you did not understand (or bother to read) what was written in the other thread? Further more why start another thread on the exact same topic if there is a active thread on the same subject?? (Bad form old sport) So again there are several indicators that point to the fact that you do not comprehend what is going on in the other thread. So I simply offered to catch you up on what has already been discussed today. Try not to read too far into a simple offer. If what you represent is valid then you need not fear reprisal.
Quote:Also, you can't use the bible to support the bible.
once you start quoting the bible then the bible becomes a Valid point of reference.. It's like you misquoting a passage from Shakespeare's Othello and then saying you can not use the works of Shakespeare to correct your misquoted mess.If you don't want to have a biblically based discussion the amend you posts to reflect your desire, otherwise know your in violation of a few different logical fallacies, ranging from moving the goal post, to good ole atheist standby, the strawman, to the good old fashion red herring. (The staple of any 'true atheist' diet.) you may wish to argue in circles but we tend to raise the bar here at AF.
Quote:That's like a jury counting the defendant as a witness to a crime and believing him when he says he didn't do anything.sorry sport not even close. You brought the defendant's testimony into the trial, now you must allow the cross examination.
