Roleplaying Apologetics

[tackattack]

We're taught to test with an open heart and mind, using the holy spirit as a testament, the Bible, judgment by one's words and deeds, from an objective as possible perspective, compassionately, using our own moral code- in our hearts, logic, discernment from reality, intellect, testimony of fellow believers, etc. It may not be based on a lot of materialistic principles, but it certainly doesn't preclude them from being used as testing.

[chatpilot]

Christians practice what I call ass backward science or as demonstrated with creationism; pseudoscience, they start with the conclusion. Anyone or anything that goes against this conclusion is attacked and ignored as evidence to the contrary. You can't compare the scientific method to that farce you call apologetics, it's an insult to science and the many scientists who work hard to try to explain those mysteries we currently don't understand about the natural world we inhabit.

[tackattack]

I can justify my position and answr a question posed to me without insulting science, just as you can generalize all Christians by what Creationists do, even though they're clearly not accepted as "within the norm" CP. You still hold that Christians generally ignore evidence to the contrary? That's fine, but it's a baseless assertion and not what apologetics practice.

[chatpilot]

Apologetics is exactly that tackattack, a way to try and conform the bible to modern times through various interpretations and manipulating text to mean other than what they plainly mean. When it is out of synche with reality it is allegorized or typified to mean something other than what is written there. When I was a believer I was a literalist and I noticed that when a text read literally was contradicted by science then it's meaning was changed to conform.

The so called 7 days of creation were believed to be 7 literal days and calculating the time from the tale of Eden to today it came out to about 7,000 years. But when science said that the universe is believed to be about 13.7 billion year the apologists then allegorized the tale of creation and stated that in Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 there is a gap of an undetermined amount of time that could account for the age of the Earth. The believers are trying to keep their bible relevant with the times and account for some of the scientific discoveries that expose the glaring scientific fallacies in your "holy" writ.

[tackattack]

Then what you're arguing against is Creationists and literal interpretations and I think we agree on those topics. Apologists however seek to incorporate a realistic view of theology by not denying empirical evidence. You're assuming the intent of the apologist is to skew the text to their perspective. From being a believer you know full well that the Bible teaches for us to test the word subjectively at least. Apologists seek to take the words in their original context and see if it still applies today. I'd love to see a literalistic approach on the lolcatz Bible. Words change meaning over time. If I called you nice you'd think I'd be complimenting you. If I wrote it down in a book a few hundred years ago it's mean foolish or stupid. Original as possible context using modern language I think is key to a good interpretation, the 14 and 1500 vernacular really doesn't really cut it