Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:44:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
475 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> James Brown wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No, I certainly might be wrong. I refuse to admit that the Bible might
> be wrong.
Thanks for falling into the logic trap.
Given: You are not infallable
Statement: You state the bible is not wrong.
Conclusion: The Bible might be wrong.
Pretty basic logic algorithm.
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
