The Bible Isn't Allowed in Arguments?

[Pard]

I have arguments with atheists at school. I have noticed a pattern...

They will make a claim that Christianity is wrong and use a verse from the Bible to "prove it". If I return with another passage from the Bible I am told off because they tell me I am not allowed to use the Bible to argue.

Did I miss the memo on this caveat? Only atheists can use the Bible to argue? I'd use an atheist doctrine to prove tot hem how wrong they really are, except they don't have one...

 

[Evointrinsic]

In certain situations, such as the one you've described, yes, I would say that the bible is allowed in those types of arguments. Hell, get them to sign up on the forums and I'll have a talk with them ;) lol.

 

[Lewis]

In certain situations, such as the one you've described, yes, I would say that the bible is allowed in those types of arguments. Hell, get them to sign up on the forums and I'll have a talk with them ;) lol.

The Bible can be used anywhere, at anytime, the Word of God supersedes you and anybody else on this planet and above. The Word of God can be used at anytime to get things straight. The Bible says, that the FOOL has said in his heart, that their is no God. Well there is a God and I will use his Word for all things, in all places, at all times.

 

[Pard]

In certain situations, such as the one you've described, yes, I would say that the bible is allowed in those types of arguments. Hell, get them to sign up on the forums and I'll have a talk with them ;) lol.

The Bible can be used anywhere, at anytime, the Word of God supersedes you and anybody else on this planet and above. The word of God can be used at anytime to get things straight. The Bible says, that the FOOL has said in his heart, that their is no God. Well there is a God and I will use his Word for all things, in all places, at all times.

That is about the sentiment I have, Lewis

:amen

 

[jasoncran]

that's kinda of a one sided argument. that would be us telling athiest that they cant use the toe when we are talking about the toe.

 

[Nick]

So much for reason and logic, atheism. :P

 

[Mike]

I've seen debates where the Bible is not allowed to be used as evidence. While I don't understand not being able to use a book that is acknowledged as being very historically accurate (even to secularists), I understand the ground rules in certain circumstances. But for an atheist to use it against you and not allow it to be used in your argument is not rational. :bigfrown

One unfortunate debate was the one pumped up by Kirk Cameron and the minister from Australia (forget his name). This was a fiasco in the making. Scheduled on American network television, they had such a ground rule, and quite frankly they over-promised and under delivered. They made a statement that they would indisputably prove the existence of God without using the Bible. (quite a bold statement to say the least) I'm quite certain that God can not be proven to the believer or dis-proven to the unbeliever unequivocally. He's made it so. This was a step back in the ongoing debate. They need to leave these debates to those who are gifted and prepared such as Lane and Desuza. They were completely outmatched and overwhelmed. Opposed to their prearranged agreement, they opened the debate with a wealth of scripture (& called on it) and very much had the "deer in the headlights" look on their faces.

Any atheist who does not acknowledge the unparalleled proven accuracy of the historical details provided in the Bible is either ignorant or contrary to spite. Many details of yet undiscovered nations (at the time), were proven accurate after formerly being dismissed as fable. All of the historical accuracy lends powerful credibility to the rest of the Bible that may seem extraordinary.

Quote on, Pard!

 

[logical bob]

Any atheist who does not acknowledge the unparalleled proven accuracy of the historical details provided in the Bible is either ignorant or contrary to spite.

Mike, you challenged us to prove historical errors in the Bible and you had to walk away from the ensuing debate acknowledging you'd bitten off more than you could chew. That should make you more cautious in saying things like that. The Census of Quirinius was just one example too... plenty more where that came from.

 

[Mike]

Any atheist who does not acknowledge the unparalleled proven accuracy of the historical details provided in the Bible is either ignorant or contrary to spite.

Mike, you challenged us to prove historical errors in the Bible and you had to walk away from the ensuing debate acknowledging you'd bitten off more than you could chew. That should make you more cautious in saying things like that. The Census of Quirinius was just one example too... plenty more where that came from.

Hi Bob,

First of all, I simply wasn't being defensive when you suggested I was in other topic. I honestly was trying to give a rebuttal to your statement. I'm not sure where you concluded that I was reactionary or defensive. I would have replied there, but I didn't want to go tic-for-tac on that matter. I say it here, because you're rearing your ugly side again. Because I wasn't prepared to defend the political/historical circumstances that support that the census to which Joseph did take place in no way speaks to the historicity of the work as a whole. I feel quite empowered to make the statement I did, because in dismissing the work as a whole, the objection would be dismissing the vast historical accounts contained within.

The topic that you are referring to was a self-admitted reach for me. I shouldn't have offered to argue virtually every (apparent discrepancy) that an atheist would submit, as this would include many areas of knowledge. My statement here stands, though. For someone to reject an argument because it cites information found in the Bible on that basis alone would be as I say.

This was rather out of character for you, with your point being to call me out personally and offer no other reason for your post. I've come to expect more from you.

 

[logical bob]

you're rearing your ugly side again.

I'm sorry you think so.

Because I wasn't prepared to defend the political/historical circumstances that support that the census to which Joseph did take place in no way speaks to the historicity of the work as a whole.

OK, but by the same token can I say that the Bible isn't historically accurate at all and that even if I'm not prepared to make the case for it I still get to announce it as fact?

Back to the topic though...

My statement here stands, though. For someone to reject an argument because it cites information found in the Bible on that basis alone would be as I say.

I'd certainly agree that if one side gets to use the Bible then both do. That seems like common sense.
And one should never reject an argument just because it cites the Bible, but sometimes one should if it only cites the Bible.

The argument that bugs atheists is the one that says that Christian claims are true because the Bible says so. That only works if the reliability of the Bible has been already established, which for the atheist it obviously hasn't. This reaches a peak of circularity when you question that reliability and someone lays 2 Timothy 3:16 on you.

If you present a secular audience with an ancient document and claim the narrative it tells is true they'll understandably want to check out the credentials of that document. You shouldn't expect the Bible to get a free pass if the reliability of Tacitus, Herodotus etc isn't taken for granted.

 

[jasoncran]

that would like arguing against islam from the koran thats why.

now if we where talking about an intepration of lets see any hadeeth, then thats a total diferent story.

 

[Lewis]

Unless Atheist repent, they are all going to Hell. Most of the times is pointless to even argue with these goons. Paul said the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God. Paul also said, If anyone, even if angels preach to you any other gospel, than what he has preached let them be accursed. And then he repeated it again in the next verse. And that is what I go by, and I don't care if they get assaulted by these statements or not. This is the father of all Atheist

 

[jasoncran]

lewis then why do we even have a science forum no that i dont agree with that statement, but often i debate to understand the contra arguement so that when an athiest using those against me i can respond intellegently and guess what i have.

and i monkey it up quite a bit on the area of science, alot.

besides most christians dont even know what the toe states and i fall into that , but less and less each time i debate and or observe.

 

[Lewis]

lewis then why do we even have a science forum no that i dont agree with that statement, but often i debate to understand the contra arguement so that when an athiest using those against me i can respond intellegently and guess what i have.

and i monkey it up quite a bit on the area of science, alot.

besides most christians dont even know what the toe states and i fall into that , but less and less each time i debate and or observe.

Jason, could you clear that up please, thank you.

 

[jasoncran]

lewis then why do we even have a science forum no that i dont agree with that statement, but often i debate to understand the contra arguement so that when an athiest using those against me i can respond intellegently and guess what i have.

and i monkey it up quite a bit on the area of science, alot.

besides most christians dont even know what the toe states and i fall into that , but less and less each time i debate and or observe.

Jason, could you clear that up please, thank you.

when i debate the athiests here i know that they wont change, so i learn their arguments and still try to reach them, but its like triaining for a big fight, you must have sparring partners.they do the same to us.

i do use what i learn here to defend my beliefs in the 'real world'

 

[logical bob]

I despise atheists

I'm sorry to hear that. I don't know you, so I can't tell what I think of you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in the meantime though.

I have had many discussions about faith and the nature of God and the nature of Jesus(AS) with you guys, and it always baffles me when I make a statement (not about the bible itsself) but about the beleifs of Islam, or logical deductions. And I get a bible verse to refute me.

Now that would work if I beleived the bible to be true, but I dont, so how is this a rebutal.

Yes, you've identified the problem exactly.

Maybe atheists feel the same way. granted though they shouldnt use verses to prove their points in that case either.

It depends what's being argued. If you want to say that the genocide described in the Old Testament undermines Christian moral claims, or that the Trinity can't be deduced from the Bible or that Paul didn't believe in the empty tomb or the physical resurrection of Christ then you have to use the Bible to make that case.

Disclaimer - these are examples. I'm not looking to debate any of those three propositons in this thread (though I've argued for two of them elsewhere on this site).

 

[Evointrinsic]

I despise atheists because they are not intellectually honest, but I respect agnostics, because at least they are willing to admit they dont know 100%

What about agnostic atheists? are they only half dishonest? ;)

Very few atheists are actually strict atheists who say "there is no god, period!" Most will say "I cannot say for sure if there is or isn't a god, yet I still currently believe there is no god" (the second being an agnostic atheist in all technicality)

Just an additive to this. Anyone that "hate's" someone isn't acting very christian. (i'm not saying who says or is implying that they hate them, but that isn't what Jesus taught, now is it?)

 

[Evointrinsic]

Lol, So Atheists were the worst for saying "there is no god" but now Agnostic Atheists are the worst because they say they don't have proof there is or isn't, but still do not believe in god based on the evidence they do have?

Basically what this means is that I realize I do not have the information to prove that there is or isn't a god, however, judging by the information I do know, such as Evolution, Abiogenesis, and how galaxies/solar systems/and larger structures can be formed naturally, I can generally conclude that there most likely is no god. In other words, once I find evidence of god, I'd believe. I just don't see any currently.

And that is worse than saying there absolutely is no god because?...

You'd think you would like someone more who is at least open to the possibility of a god rather than one that says there is no possibility of one at all? Your logic is strange to me.

Is there any kind of people (other than muslims) who you do like?

PS: I don't hate or despise anyone because of their belief, especially before i even meet the person. A Persons actions make up a person, not their beliefs. In my opinion at least ;)