"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>Most likely Christians can defend Christianity as a science by any
>definition you might want to provide, but just for reference, let's use the
>following:
>>Main Entry: sci·ence
>Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
>Function: noun
>Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from
>scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know;
>probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split --
>more at SHED
>Date: 14th century
>1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or
>misunderstanding
>2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the
>science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be
>studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
>3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the
>operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through
>scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned
>with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
>4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
><culinary science>
>5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
>>You most likely can't prove that Christianity doesn't fit under all five
>definitions above, Angilion. Certainly you can't deny that it's "the state
>of knowing", as it's one of the most comprehensive and widely spread
>collections of knowledge on the planet?
Thereby showing that you cannot understand English, placing you under a state
of "ignorance or misunderstanding" rather than science.
Meanwhile 1 Corinthians 13 says that we DON'T know all, but only in part. So
we are NOT in a "state of knowing" in a Biblical sense, but rather are
ignorant.
>Certainly you can't deny that
>Christianity is "something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or
>learned like systematized knowledge", can you?
It can be, but most Christians do not attempt to learn it systematically.
When they do, we call it "Christian theology".
>It's even "a system or method reconciling
>practical ends with scientific laws" because the practical ends of
>organizing a society around Christian principles (which by the definition
>above are "scientific laws") is to nourish and protect that society, which
>worked very well until the jews got involved.
The Jews were involved from the very beginning.
Your reasoning in this case is circular. You assume that the principles of
Christianity are scientific, and thus that Christianity is a science (and
thus its principles are scientific)
I notice that you skipped number 3, which is the definition most commonly
used, and the one which is associated with the school subject called
"science".
And you also skipped number 5. Relatively few people consider Christian
Scientists to be either Christians or Scientists, other than Christian
Scientists themselves.
>Maybe I understand what you're trying to say about "science",
You seldom understand anything, since you are in a state of "ignorance and
misunderstanding".
>I
>understand you to mean that you believe our advanced technological society
>could not exist without much laboratory-related R&D
Laboratory-related R&D is conducted according to definition 3. And you
thoroughly misunderstand if you think the poster said that it was not
necessary.
>and COULD exist without
>the Holy Bible, Christianity, or Christians. I don't agree that any of it
>could have happened without Christianity, though.
But since the whole world could care less with what you think, this hardly
matters.
>However--I greatly enjoy and appreciate watching you rip the feminazis to
>shreds.
So far, they are being far more successful than you at ripping and shredding.
And they will continue to be, until you show that you know better than the
girls do how to solve those problems you think they are too dumb to solve.
lojbab
