Nobody Wants To Discuss Apologetics With Me!

[Guest bat]

Would it be allowed under the current moderators' statutes if I were to start picking apologetic articles and explain why they stink? I don't want to offend anybody by stating the obvious, so I'm asking first. Good job, me.

Maybe we can see how far Kevin's loyal following of a institution of higher learning gets him on the ladder of a religion that is based on an evidence-lacking faith.

[Guest JLHyde]

Originally posted by bat@Sep 3 2004, 12:51 AM

Would it be allowed under the current moderators' statutes if I were to start picking apologetic articles and explain why they stink?  I don't want to offend anybody by stating the obvious, so I'm asking first.  Good job, me.

Maybe we can see how far Kevin's loyal following of a institution of higher learning gets him on the ladder of a religion that is based on an evidence-lacking faith. 

I might talk with you for awhile, bat.

Personally, I have little use for apologetics, altogether. To me--even though I understand the actual definition of this word--it appears that people are actually somehow apologizing for something when they "engage themselves in" all that fluff surrounding this "field" of apologetics.

So, it is almost altogether without merit.

I think you are intelligent enough to know of a quote given by that [apostate] Stephen Benson, wherein he quotes the late Neal Maxwell as saying that FARMS and FAIR only exist to keep all [you?] naysayers from "making an end-run around the church":

the "ludicrous" thing about it all is that otherwise intelligent people STILL think that they can muscle their way around those "defensive backs" in their "wide formation", to use further football analogies, here.

The sooner people understand that FARMS and FAIR are only there to deflect the attacks and criticisms of naysayers, then the sooner people can just laugh at all the falderol and fluff coming from both sides of the fence--so far as this burden of proof is concerned.

(I think you are not ignorant of the Scriptures and the Biblical definition of "faith" and "faith-based religion". Mormonism is not the only "faith-based" religion. None of the others feel an obligation to prove their [collective or individual] faith to the Corihors of society--whether such "society" is defined as the religious societal subset known as mormonism or, contrastingly, as "society-at-large" [ie, that greater society of the country as a whole].)

And, of course, there is really only one definition of "Corihor"!

So, I see why people are not as easily baited as you, bat, might wish them to be.

Away with all that "proof" bullsnot, me friend!

(Don't talk to me about "blind faith", either. It's your concern and problem and nobody else's.)

PS: There R those that would jump off a cliff if "the prophet" told them to do it. Such R the people who go "baaaaa", in this religion. And, then there are the others! And NEITHER group would take you up on this irrelevant topic (viz., irrelevant to their faith-based--and outcome-based--individual perspectives!)

So, I guess your sandbox is empty, then? (Except for you?)

[Kevin]

Would it be allowed under the current moderators' statutes if I were to start picking apologetic articles and explain why they suck?  I don't want to offend anybody by stating the obvious, so I'm asking first.  Good job, me.

As long as you can do so without breaking the clearly stated board rules then I say go for it. It is entirely possible and you may even be sufficiently intelligent to make an argument without being demeaning or disrespectful. Let me just point out that that using terms such as "suck" in reference to apologetic articles is not much of an argument.

Maybe we can see how far Kevin's loyal following of a institution of higher learning gets him on the ladder of a religion that is based on an evidence-lacking faith.

What are you talking about? Would you care to explain your comment? It doesn't make much sense to me.