ultima said:
| happydolphin said:
@bold. Facepalm I didn't, your friend in skepticism Osc did. Regardless I respect creationists for what they do so I wouldn't care if they were considered to a comparable level of discipline each in their own field. But when someone is bundling the words pseudoscience when talking about religious studies, you know you have a boso on your hands.
@1. Religious studies makes use of history, for example, to explain ideas found in religious texts that may seem contradictory. Whether it has life implications to you or not doesn't change the fact that it is a very complex and in-depth multi-disciplinary study that really resembles detective work. It requires knowledge of linguistics, history, archaelogy, and many other disciplines in order to find answers to theological questions.
|
1. He used pseudoscience when referring to creationism, and that's a moniker that is completely justified. You, then, put creationists and theologists together, as if creationists do anything that is considered productive. I think most theologists would find that offensive; rightly so.
2. I didn't ask about the process or the difficulties of theological research. I had a vague idea of that already. I inquired about its value. What makes it so valuable as to warrant such explicit description?
|
2. Read bold. Read my posts. Please.
1. I am going to curse to the seven hells here you are driving me insane. HIS WORDS -> "The issue here is the religious approach, the same thing that makes all creationist theory pseudoscience." in reference to theology, in this post.
