Apologetics

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-12-21 01:20am

WTF is it...

In my experience in attempting to learn about it, it just seems to be a a way of saying: "You're wrong, because you obviously are interpreting this/that/the other the wrong way." Without actually explaining anything.

Anyone know what it really is?

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-21 01:59am

The art of developing a highly implausible set of events to save the Bible from looking embarassingly stupid in some cases (re: the entire Book of Matthew, for example), and then claiming the problem skeptics point out has been solved because they can't prove that their ridiculous version of events didn't happen.

Classic example is the triumphal entry. Matthew in scouring the Old Testament for 'prophecies' to make up and badly shoe-horn into Jesus' life, misunderstood a common Hebrew literary practice called a parallelism. Basically a sentence will repeat itself for emphasis. It happens a lot in the OT.

Matthew, in contrast to the other Gospel writiers, says that Jesus actually fetched two animals and that he rode them into Bethlehem- because quite frankly he was a tit and didn't know how to read.

Apologist tactics:

1: Nitpick the semantics to mean that there actually WERE two animals, but that Jesus only rode one, and the other one was used to *can't remember, but insert ridiculous explanation here*

2: Irrationalize Jesus getting 1 animal in the other Gospels by saying only Matthew thought it was important, so it's not a contradiction.

In conclusion ....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-21 02:01am

Favourite apologist argument: "You're taking it out of context".

Favourite comeback: "Please provide a reasonable context in which genocide and infanticide are OK".

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-12-21 07:26am

Darth Wong wrote:Favourite apologist argument: "You're taking it out of context".

Favourite comeback: "Please provide a reasonable context in which genocide and infanticide are OK".

Didn't that idiot Priesto actually venture some sort of justification for God killing babies, some while back?

Frankly, if it is in defense of their Bible, I doubt there's anything a fundie wouldn't say.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-12-21 12:32pm

Lagmonster wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Favourite apologist argument: "You're taking it out of context".

Favourite comeback: "Please provide a reasonable context in which genocide and infanticide are OK".
Didn't that idiot Priesto actually venture some sort of justification for God killing babies, some while back?

Frankly, if it is in defense of their Bible, I doubt there's anything a fundie wouldn't say.

I believe many fundies wuld end up saying that it was okay to kil lthe babies because "They would go to Heaven". If one of them says that, then say that they have justified abortion right there.

It's a fundie delusion that anything is okay as long as God approves of it, no matter how atrocius it is.

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-21 04:39pm

For me, apologetics is chiefly introspective.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-12-21 05:04pm

Priesto used the justification " It is the best way to punish the parents for their sins" That is the one that revolting oderous conflagration fo mucous, bile, and human excrement used.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2002-12-21 06:38pm

Darth Wong wrote:Favourite comeback: "Please provide a reasonable context in which genocide and infanticide are OK".

My comeback to that: "Any of your direct family".

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-12-21 06:48pm

Matthew, in contrast to the other Gospel writiers, says that Jesus actually fetched two animals and that he rode them into Bethlehem- because quite frankly he was a tit and didn't know how to read.

Of course, that's a minor contradiction and not really important, so only God knows why some Christians would get riled up about it.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-21 09:57pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
Matthew, in contrast to the other Gospel writiers, says that Jesus actually fetched two animals and that he rode them into Bethlehem- because quite frankly he was a tit and didn't know how to read.
Of course, that's a minor contradiction and not really important, so only God knows why some Christians would get riled up about it.

Cause if the Bible is the word of God and God is perfect, then it can't have any contradictions.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-12-21 10:16pm

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:
Matthew, in contrast to the other Gospel writiers, says that Jesus actually fetched two animals and that he rode them into Bethlehem- because quite frankly he was a tit and didn't know how to read.
Of course, that's a minor contradiction and not really important, so only God knows why some Christians would get riled up about it.
Cause if the Bible is the word of God and God is perfect, then it can't have any contradictions.

"My Bible says that David found the rocks in a river!"

"Well, mind said he found them in a stream!"

"HEATHEN! You must be killed!"

"No, I'm the righteous one!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2002-12-21 10:49pm

somewhere, sometime, you know that convo has happened.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2002-12-21 11:28pm

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:
Matthew, in contrast to the other Gospel writiers, says that Jesus actually fetched two animals and that he rode them into Bethlehem- because quite frankly he was a tit and didn't know how to read.
Of course, that's a minor contradiction and not really important, so only God knows why some Christians would get riled up about it.
Cause if the Bible is the word of God and God is perfect, then it can't have any contradictions.

The Bible is just a series of contradictions.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-22 01:02am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote: Cause if the Bible is the word of God and God is perfect, then it can't have any contradictions.
The Bible is just a series of contradictions.

I know that, you know that, but there are Fundies who think there's not a single contradiction in the Bible.

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-22 01:16am

Well technically, you would be hard-pressed to find a contradiction per se in the Bible.

Technically speaking.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-22 01:45am

The Apologist wrote:Well technically, you would be hard-pressed to find a contradiction per se in the Bible.

Technically speaking.

Living up to your name again I see. Considering you haven't even referred to the contradiction previously mentioned. Funny how it didn't seem that difficult to come up with it.

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-22 02:04am

Which one? Unless I missed something, no biblical contradictions have been shown on this topic.

Technically speaking.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-22 02:48am

The Apologist wrote:Which one? Unless I missed something, no biblical contradictions have been shown on this topic.

Technically speaking.

Wow, your potshots amaze even me. If you were playing Quake, you would be a camper. And an amazingly piss-poor camper at that.

Read the fucking posts douchebag. It's pretty evident. Should be, even for a fucking limp-dicked moron like you.

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2002-12-22 03:05am

"Technically"

Nitpicking coward

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-22 05:57am

Sometimes The Apologist makes sense... technically...

More often though, he is so full of shit... technically...

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-12-22 07:10am

It would appear that my original question has been answered in the method true of apologists and Paul H. Jacques...

Look at the point and scream at the top of your lungs:

"Pah! FALSE!"

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-22 03:32pm

Well, since three supposed contradictions have been presented on this topic, I really would appreciate if you told which one you were talking about.

But really, do you even know what it means when two propositions are contradictory?

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2002-12-22 04:21pm

Do you understand the circular logic implicit in "the Bible is the infallible word of God because it is stated in the Bible that it is the infallible word of God"?

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-22 04:30pm

Of course I do. No Christians believe that, anyway, as far as I know.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2002-12-22 04:33pm

The Apologist wrote:Of course I do. No Christians believe that, anyway, as far as I know.

Then you don't know much, now do you?