People who cite biblical verses in debates aren't original

[ElationAviation]

It's frustrating how some people involved in religious debates always fill their rebuttals with biblical verses that no one can understand. What happened to being original and developing your own logical thought process to defend your beliefs? Hiding behind a book doesn't make you credible - it only shows that you're skillful with copy/paste.

 

[Skwim]

You mean the idea they have that "My truth must be is everyone's truth"? Yeah, it's kind of sad.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

It's frustrating how some people involved in religious debates always fill their rebuttals with biblical verses that no one can understand. What happened to being original and developing your own logical thought process to defend your beliefs? Hiding behind a book doesn't make you credible - it only shows that you're skillful with copy/paste.

If you put it that way then you can't use any resources for your argument only things that you have personally made. So basically your idea of a argument is I'm right because i say I am.

 

[Skwim]

If you put it that way then you can't use any resources for your argument only things that you have personally made. So basically your idea of a argument is I'm right because i say I am.

I think the qualifying term, although a bit overstated, is "always fill their rebuttals with biblical verses." I've seen Christians argue secular points with non-Christians by using Biblical verses to make their case. Hardly a persuasive tactic, wouldn't you say?

 

[Thesavorofpan]

I think the qualifying term, although a bit overstated, is "always fill their rebuttals with biblical verses." I've seen Christians argue secular points with non-Christians by using Biblical verses to make their case. Hardly a persuasive tactic, wouldn't you say?

Well it's a religious debate, so you use your religous tools in your arguement. Wether or not that tool proves your argument is different subject. If the argument was not religious then it would be wrong to use your religious tools, but since this is a religious debate site in its religious debate section you can totally use whatever book you consider Holy and still be a credible source.

 

[ChristineES]

Most people are not always original. If you were to do a search, you would probably find several instances of the same question (worded differently, though). Besides that, as savorofpan pointed out, people who are Christians are going to quote from the Bible, Muslims from the Qur'an, and so on and so forth with each faith that has literature.
Welcome to the forums.

 

[Riverwolf]

Using the Bible as support for an argument is fine; using Biblical verses as an argument isn't.

 

[Tarheeler]

It's frustrating how some people involved in religious debates always fill their rebuttals with biblical verses that no one can understand. What happened to being original and developing your own logical thought process to defend your beliefs? Hiding behind a book doesn't make you credible - it only shows that you're skillful with copy/paste.

All depends on how it is done. If they're using it as supporting evidence and can fully explain the passage and integrate into the argument, then it's fine. If they're just tossing out scriptures and hoping something sticks, then it's crap.

What I gets me are the ones who want to justify interfaith or secular topics on a specific set of scriptures. Using your scripture to explain your belief is one thing, but trying to use that passage to explain why another belief is wrong is another. Why would a non- Christian accept something from the New Testament as proof of anything, or a non-Muslim accept verses from the Qur'an?

 

[Skwim]

Well it's a religious debate, so you use your religous tools in your arguement.

What is a religious debate? I just said "argue secular points."

"Secular":
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body:
​

Wether or not that tool proves your argument is different subject. If the argument was not religious then it would be wrong to use your religious tools, but since this is a religious debate site in its religious debate section you can totally use whatever book you consider Holy

Hey, you can pray that other guy comes around to your argument or threaten him with a hard spanking, but none of these methods is likely to work.

and still be a credible source.

Might want to look up the word "credible." I don't believe it means what you think it does. You do understand, don't you, that if another party doesn't consider a particular source to be credible that citing that source is a waste of time?

 

[Riverwolf]

Might want to look up the word "credible." I don't believe it means what you think it does. You do understand, don't you, that if another party doesn't consider a particular source to be credible that citing that source is a waste of time?

Depends on what you're debating. You can use Biblical passages as support for certain secular debates, such as what the culture of the time was, the history of how the text was written, etc.

 

[kejos]

It's frustrating how some people involved in religious debates always fill their rebuttals with biblical verses that no one can understand.

I can never understand why people complain about the incomprehensible. One simply ignores posts of posters who do such things, along with those of those with other useless habits.

 

[Eliot Wild]

I can never understand why people complain about the incomprehensible.

When it is asserted as truth, then I can see rational reasons for complaint. It seems to me the whole point of debate and discussion is to expose truth. If the other party can't comprehend the point you are making, then they haven't had the truth properly exposed to them. It doesn't make you less correct, of course; but where is the practicality of the exercise? I suppose it could be to convince a third-party observer, but that really isn't debate, is it? That's like putting on a show.

More closely to the topic, if someone doesn't recognize the Bible as credible evidence of God, how might the truth therein be conveyed to them otherwise?

 

[kejos]

When it is asserted as truth, then I can see rational reasons for complaint.

Ok, let's say I state this in the course of a thread:

d%&}rgz87*(^# is truth.

Now what have I done, other than interrupt a thread, take up monitor space, waste energy, my own time, and a little of others? And if I do that sort of thing more than a few times, people will just scroll past my posts. No great problem, surely.

More closely to the topic, if someone doesn't recognize the Bible as credible evidence of God, how might the truth therein be conveyed to them otherwise?

If the Bible is not accepted as having validity, that's another thing- it's comprehensible, if irrelevant.

 

[ElationAviation]

I think the qualifying term, although a bit overstated, is "always fill their rebuttals with biblical verses." I've seen Christians argue secular points with non-Christians by using Biblical verses to make their case. Hardly a persuasive tactic, wouldn't you say?

Agreed. I should've been a little less specific. Thank you for pointing it out.