No, you're not. Saying it and doing it are not the same thing.
How can I prove this? Easy?
If indeed you were "suggesting that it might not be, that there may be more to the mind of God than the bible," you'd have some definable set of circumstances to conclude there is indeed nothing else in the mind of G-d, and that this set does not fulfill it.
Without that, all you're doing is attempting to undermine the veracity of the other person's philosophical premise. You're not showing any faults, you're just trying to get them to accept YOUR question mark instead of THEIR period. Without a reason to do so, there's no reason to do so.
I posted on the daughter's site's comments area.. firmly but respectfully, I think. I hope that no one here on Freep would send here pejorative-laces comments.
I will say that I disapprove of Alan Keyes and his wife cutting her off.. a parent's love should be unconditional and the 'tough love' approach backfires as often as not. She is a deeply misguided girl, but there is always stil hope. BUt pushing her to keep exclusively company that agrees with her sexual orientation and politics is no way to either treat her generally, or 'salvage' her eventually, if that's the right word.
"you'd have some definable set of circumstances to conclude there is indeed nothing else in the mind of G-d"
It should be obvious that nobody knows the mind of God. If they do, it isn't provable. If it is provable, nobody's proved it. If they've proved it, where's the proof? So what you are left with is a lot of very big fans of very dead authors who take everything they say on faith, and exclude the possibility that God, if She exists, may hold contrary opinions to many assertions in the bible. Perhaps She's working through me right now, bringing you the truth, and trusting that even with Free Will you'll make the right decision and abandon the idea that who people are attracted to matters at all.
"Without that, all you're doing is attempting to undermine the veracity of the other person's philosophical premise. You're not showing any faults, you're just trying to get them to accept YOUR question mark instead of THEIR period. Without a reason to do so, there's no reason to do so."
I think the whole Question/Period thing is quite cool. But I don't really understand it. Are you saying that I'm asking them to accept my questioning of the Bible, rather than me accept their assertion that the Bible is right? Or are you saying that I'm asking them to accept my questioning of the Bible, but I'm unwilling to get them to accept their own assertion of the Bible? If the latter, then yes that's what i'm doing. Else it all comes down to the totology, "I believe what I believe" or "it's true because it's true".
And I do "have a reason to do so". My reason is because in any discussion of morality, I'm often presented with arguments in the form of quotations from the Bible, as if that were all that was needed. How can you argue with that? If its in the Bible, I'm immediately wrong. If its not in the Bible...oh wait, that's right, there's always something in the Bible. I'd have to be the Pope to argue anything with someone quoting the Bible.