{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/23/2015 7:01:38 PM
1
You are limiting the argument to a basis the the other side doesn't believe in, and has no ground to stand upon, there for this is an abusive limitation and is discarded from the argument. You are arguing atheism vs Christianity there for you can defend your side through the bible but you cannot wholely limit the argument to it.
English
-
No, I'm arguing that atheist arguments against the bible and therefore Christianity are devoid of an understanding of what the bible actually teaches.
-
You said, and I quote, "these are the account of the bible, so the bible needs to be the basis of your argument". Tell me how you aren't limiting the argument.
-
The point is that they are saying, "this thing written in the bible doesn't make sense" and I'm saying, " if you actually read the bible and study the context, then that thing written in the bible would make sense. "
-
It conflicts with science. They aren't saying the bubble conflicts with itself.
-
Actually they do. And it doesn't conflict with science.
-
On many accounts it does. Such as how long it to the earth to form/be created.
-
It doesn't state how long. It uses the term days which has many different meanings. As a matter of fact, it says that God rested on the 7th day and according to the bible that rest is still going on. That's a long day...
