Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Doubting Thomas]

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.

[Mudhammam]

I am going to give you a chance to retract that statement before I show you why it is ridiculous.

I will give you 24 hours to do so.

---

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Oooohhh!

Why did I suddenly get the song "The Final Countdown" playing in my head?

If you have a counter argument. Present it now.

Don't play the dramatic card and certainly not the "I'm better than you because I believe" card.

Present your cards or fold.

He needs to extend his equivocation 25 more pages or so, then he can start a new thread tomorrow discussing his convoluted ideas about apologetics and why he thinks Christianity is a cult in a class of its own.

[discipulus]

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.

[*Deidre*]

[Jacob(smooth)]

I foresee a discussion on the word "requires".

When you're done, here's fun. What does one do when apologists disagree?

[*Deidre*]

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!

---

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.

[The Valkyrie]

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.

Science has verifiable evidence and that which is proven to be wrong is thrown own. Religion has people who desperately attempt to reinterpret what is in their book - unchanging, according to most - says to fit it into a modern context.

Thanks for proving the desperation of your attempts - especially citing CARM as a resource. Once again you've shown yourself to be both arrogant and ignorant.

[truthBtold]

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.

Science has verifiable evidence and that which is proven to be wrong is thrown own. Religion has people who desperately attempt to reinterpret what is in their book - unchanging, according to most - says to fit it into a modern context.

Thanks for proving the desperation of your attempts - especially citing CARM as a resource. Once again you've shown yourself to be both arrogant and ignorant.

Carm is a box clown

[discipulus]

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

I did not say people have defended and are defending scientific positions.

What I stated was that people have defended and are defending science. To do this systematically, theses apologists cannot use science but must use other means at attempting to defend it because to say science is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in because of what we have discovered using science would be to argue in a circle. This is a fallacy known as a tautology.

So you actually have just constructed a strawman of my statement.

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.

Apologetics is the systematic defense of a particular position irrespective of whether it is secular or religious. That is all it is. Yes there are apologists who deal with defending their particular religious views. So what? There are scientists who are apologists who deal with defending the pursuits of science.

Nothing you said either undercuts or rebuts my argument.

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.

You have not read the works of too many scientists then.

---

Science has verifiable evidence and that which is proven to be wrong is thrown own.

*Out* is what you mean.

And so what? What does that have to do with my statement that people defend science?

Nothing. It is irrelevant.

Religion has people who desperately attempt to reinterpret what is in their book - unchanging, according to most - says to fit it into a modern context.

To be charitable, I agree.

But so what?

That in no way either undercuts or rebuts my statement which is a statement of fact that people defend the pursuits of science.

Thanks for proving the desperation of your attempts - especially citing CARM as a resource. Once again you've shown yourself to be both arrogant and ignorant.

Perilously close to an ad hominem fallacy my friend.

As of now, your statement stands. Science is therefore fundamentally flawed. I suggest you retract it.

************

Ain't that amazing Deidre!!!

Not all of us Christians are so dumb after all! : )

[Mudhammam]

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.

*face palm*
An incredible display of ignorance regarding the difference between the scientific method and the apologist's narrow (mis)understanding of the historical method.