Otseng,
There is still some confusion about rule #3. I would've sent you a private message, but I figured a lot of members would want to see this so that they understand this rule, as well. Using the Bible as evidence is a common source of contention, and I can refer you to at least 4 head-to-head debates that serve as examples to my point.
In a current H2H debate on the resurrection, For_The_Kingdom referred to rule #3 to show that the Bible can be used as evidence. Zzyzx objected to this and quoted from the rules to show that For_The_Kingdom's statement was wrong..
Here's one example:
Zzyzx wrote:
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
I disagree with the notion that the Bible cannot be used as evidence, and I am in line with Guidelines of the forum, you know, the same guidelines that you appealed to in your earlier post.
Kindly review – quoted from C&A Guidelines
If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines.
Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.
This sub-forum is intended as a meeting ground for any and all theistic positions – none of which are given preferential treatment. It is a very “level playing field�.
Any story, statement or claim of knowledge which is challenged is required to be substantiated with evidence to show that it is true and accurate. “The Bible (or Quran or Bhagavad Gita) says so� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth.
If you disagree with the Guidelines and/or cannot debate without attempting to use the Bible to prove a point or position true, kindly do not debate in this sub-forum. Instead, use Theology, Doctrine and Dogma OR Holy Huddle sub-forums in which the Bible IS regarded as authoritative and can be used as proof of truth.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741
What part of that is unclear?
Here are the facts so far based on your post here and what's in the rules:
- The Bible can be used as evidence in support of historical claims (people, places, and events).
- The Bible can not be used as proof (from the forum rules that Zzyzx quoted)
- Avoid using only the Bible to prove that Christianity is true.
My take is perhaps Zzyzx is confusing "proof" with "evidence", and he's also confusing evidence of 'historical' claims with evidence of 'faith/theological' claims (the Bible contains BOTH types of claims). So the way I avoid this confusion, is by looking at this in the following way:
Using the Bible as evidence for
individual historical claims is not the same as using the Bible to prove Christianity; the latter would involve proving theology and history rather than individual 'historical' claims.
I tried to be as specific as I can. Is my understanding correct? Is Zzyzx's understanding correct? Or is there a genuine conflict in the rules?