(March 10, 2015 at 12:23 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: I'm going to try explaining this to you one more time. Try real hard to concentrate, okay?
I'll do my best, but your continuous naked assertions are tiresome to say the least.
(March 10, 2015 at 12:23 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: We are not talking about proving anything in the real world.
Can you prove it in the unreal world?
Nah, I'm just screwing with you now.
(March 10, 2015 at 12:23 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: The topic at hand is an interpretation of a particular Scripture. There is no evidence to be discussed, in any way shape or form. This is not the same as providing proof for God's existence, it is an entirely separate argument.
To make any of the claims presented valid, one must already believe in god, yes.
Which means you're just preaching. Thanks for the clarification.
(March 10, 2015 at 12:23 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: One cannot simply say "this Scripture means that," provide nothing other than opinion, and then criticize another for pointing out that they are logically mistaken based on precedents and antecedents in the very same book which that person originally quoted. It has nothing to do at all with circular reasoning or special pleading.
Oh, you mean the saying evidence doesn't apply to christianity isn't special pleading and claiming all the evidence needed is the bible isn't circular reasoning? Mhm.
