The inquisition is alive and well, and living in New York.

[Seth]

Paraphrasing Christian dogma does not qualify as an expression of belief. You should understand that.

You weren't 'paraphrasing Christian dogma', you were justifying your point off the back of Christian doctrine. This marks you out as a Christian apologist - a role you seem to embrace with gusto and verve.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Using your logic you're a Marxist apologist, right?

a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists

a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

So, yeah, I'm an "apologist" for many things. That's one of the hallmarks of an educated mind; the ability to entertain an idea without believing it. Aristotle said that. And Socrates was an "apologist" for many things.

That's how the Socratic process works. You take the Marxist apologist position, which is controversial, and I take the Libertarian apologist position, which is controversial, and from those two positions there is the possibility of rational discourse and debate on the differences. The same thing is true for Atheism and Christianity, or any other two opposing notions.

You might also want to note that the definition of "apologist" does not even imply that the individual holds the "something" as a personal belief or practice.

So while I'm a professional apologist (yes, I get paid to state my opinion from time to time), that still doesn't make me a Christian.

[Seth]

Paraphrasing Christian dogma does not qualify as an expression of belief. You should understand that.

You weren't 'paraphrasing Christian dogma', you were justifying your point off the back of Christian doctrine. This marks you out as a Christian apologist - a role you seem to embrace with gusto and verve.

And here they are: Seth, Gusto & Verve!

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Now that's funny!

[Seth]

You should know better, Jim. Do it again and I will suspend you. Take this as a warning.

Besides, Seth isn't useful at all!

Er, you can join him on vacation...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You should know better, Jim. Do it again and I will suspend you. Take this as a warning.

Besides, Seth isn't useful at all!

Er, you can join him on vacation...

I would love to. A trip around the vineries of Ozland would do wonders for my depression.

[Seth]

You should know better, Jim. Do it again and I will suspend you. Take this as a warning.

Besides, Seth isn't useful at all!

Er, you can join him on vacation...

I would love to. A trip around the vineries of Ozland would do wonders for my depression.

Try Wellbutrin.

[Brian Peacock]

Paraphrasing Christian dogma does not qualify as an expression of belief. You should understand that.

You weren't 'paraphrasing Christian dogma', you were justifying your point off the back of Christian doctrine. This marks you out as a Christian apologist - a role you seem to embrace with gusto and verve.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Using your logic you're a Marxist apologist, right?

a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists

a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

So, yeah, I'm an "apologist" for many things. That's one of the hallmarks of an educated mind; the ability to entertain an idea without believing it. Aristotle said that. And Socrates was an "apologist" for many things.

That's how the Socratic process works. You take the Marxist apologist position, which is controversial, and I take the Libertarian apologist position, which is controversial, and from those two positions there is the possibility of rational discourse and debate on the differences. The same thing is true for Atheism and Christianity, or any other two opposing notions.

You might also want to note that the definition of "apologist" does not even imply that the individual holds the "something" as a personal belief or practice.

So while I'm a professional apologist (yes, I get paid to state my opinion from time to time), that still doesn't make me a Christian.

I'm not a Marxist. Not even close.

You routinely define the antithetical position to your own as Marxist - and we all know what that makes it...

[Seth]

Paraphrasing Christian dogma does not qualify as an expression of belief. You should understand that.

You weren't 'paraphrasing Christian dogma', you were justifying your point off the back of Christian doctrine. This marks you out as a Christian apologist - a role you seem to embrace with gusto and verve.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Using your logic you're a Marxist apologist, right?

a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists

a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

So, yeah, I'm an "apologist" for many things. That's one of the hallmarks of an educated mind; the ability to entertain an idea without believing it. Aristotle said that. And Socrates was an "apologist" for many things.

That's how the Socratic process works. You take the Marxist apologist position, which is controversial, and I take the Libertarian apologist position, which is controversial, and from those two positions there is the possibility of rational discourse and debate on the differences. The same thing is true for Atheism and Christianity, or any other two opposing notions.

You might also want to note that the definition of "apologist" does not even imply that the individual holds the "something" as a personal belief or practice.

So while I'm a professional apologist (yes, I get paid to state my opinion from time to time), that still doesn't make me a Christian.

I'm not a Marxist. Not even close.

Are you a socialist?

You routinely define the antithetical position to your own as Marxist - and we all know what that makes it...

No, I correctly identify socialist doublespeak as being Marxist in origin because it is. It's a "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine kind of thing. When you draw your political and social model from Marxism, it's always going to be Marxism no matter how you try to dress that pig.

[/quote]

[laklak]

God I love the Three Stooges. I think Iggy and the Stooges were but poor substitutes, though with better fidelity.