RE: Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels
March 12, 2014 at 6:43 pm
(This post was last modified: March 12, 2014 at 6:50 pm by *Deidre*.)
(March 12, 2014 at 5:46 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote:(March 12, 2014 at 4:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote: For 25 years I worked with a jewish guy who lived with his mom who kept a kosher kitchen. He hated kosher with a passion. Frequently at lunch he would order Fresh Ham or a bacon and sausage omelet. I would always chide him with "mom ain't going to like that." To which he'd reply "tough shit."
But he did consider himself jewish.
Good on him. I can't really relate except for when I was Catholic and doing the whole "no meat on Friday during Lent" thing. I didn't like it then and thought it was pretty silly, especially since fish was A-OK but eating a cow, chicken, or pig was out. I think any religion prohibiting eating certain foods is just plain ridiculous.
Well, that all has historical merit I suppose, why those meats were out, and fish was acceptable.
The one thing I'll say about fasting, is that while it is a spiritual 'exercise' it can also be very fulfilling, physically, mentally and emotionally. Depriving one's self of anything for a certain time period, and that doesn't have to be food, creates greater temperance, and also it's something that help cleanse the body, physically. So, when I went through the Lent ritual, I thought of it more along those lines. Yes, it's discussed in the Bible, but the reason it took on a spiritual end, was that it is basically a way to grow in temperance through sacrifice.
Of course, I never understood how it could be much of a sacrifice giving up meat on Fridays, and then heading over to a church 'fish fry,' to see everyone gorging on fish, and french fries, or pizza. lol Hmmm...how is this a sacrifice again? :p
Memories!
(March 12, 2014 at 6:36 pm)discipulus Wrote: Beccs and Pickup_shonuff...
Lend me your ears! *clears throat* err...umm....your eyes rather! : /
To Beccs:
You have confidently asserted that anything that requires apologetics is fundamentally flawed.
If this is your view, then according to you, science is fundamentally flawed because people ever since its inception, some scientists and some from other disciplines, have defended it and do defend it through the systematic use of information which is all apologetics is.
So thank you for your insight. Once again you have demonstrated you should not be heeded.
I KNEW you were going to go in this direction with that, well not verbatim.
The key difference of course, in 'defending' a scientific position and that of a religious one, is that religion isn't based on logic and reasoning (no matter how many apologetics are sitting around the table) and science is based on reason and logic. Apologetics, to be specific, lean more towards defending why religion isn't irrational, and why one can apply reason and logic to it. Most of the books I've read, or lectures I've watched over the years where apologetics were the authors/speakers, they were trying to employ logic and reason to why people should logically come to the conclusion that faith/religion makes sense.
But, a lot of mental gymnastics, and twisting of Scripture usually went into it. Science requires no such spin. Apologetics are the quintessential ''spin doctors'' so to speak.
