Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:19:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
466 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> > Ok, I don't believe in YOUR version of God. Am I off the hook? Will you let
> > me go around saying that I'm not wrong to say so? Will you go around saying
> > that I AM wrong to say so or that I'm ONLY right to agree with you? If
> > you'll allow for yourself to be wrong, just as I allow for my own error,
> > then fine, I don't have any further quarrel with you.
>
> It's not whether I think you're right or wrong, it's whether the Bible
> says you're right or wrong - in which case it is clear that your
> unbelief is wrong.
So, in other words, you refuse to admit that you might be wrong.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I argue first and foremost that the Creation we see all around us is evidence of God's existence (as is mentioned in the Bible). I also argue that scientific evidence supports the Creation theory. Of course there's no proof, then there would (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
