Apologists that may be lying

[Bahana]

I was listening to an interview with Tracie Harris recently and she stated that she investigated some of the claims of Josh McDowell and seemed convinced that he knew he was leaving information out in his books and was dishonest. Are there any apologists that you suspect may not be sincere and know they are deceiving people?

[The Grand Nudger]

.............other than all of them, you mean?

[Minimalist]

If their lips are moving they are lying.

[The Grand Nudger]

Self convinced snake oil salesman are amateurs.  They're no good at what they do because they're the consumer of their own product.  The really succesful salesmen know that what they're selling is shit.....it's that knowledge that helps them to succeed in the first place. They know that their product costs pennies and can be sold for dollars.

[vorlon13]

WH spokesperson Sarah Sanders.

Hell, her daddy was a preechur, she knows the drill obviously, but she can still tell whoppers with the best of them.

[vulcanlogician]

The thing with apologists is, they know the arguments too well to be arguing as poorly as they do. I'm sure there are a few honest apologists out there, but by and large, they are little more than sleazy attorneys. 

For instance, Answers in Genesis keeps pushing the way-past-debunked "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" argument when they know damn well it's horseshit. They have to know. The first 9 out of ten google hits will lay it out plainly. The reason they keep using it is to take advantage of the general ignorance of their audience. If that isn't intellectual dishonesty, I don't know what is.

[vorlon13]

I'd like to think most apologists know when to hold them, know when to fold them, when to walk away and when to run.

Not too many would try to 'splain something like this:

Acts 26  (KJV)
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

---

what about LAZARUS ???????

---

[brewer]

[LastPoet]

I always had to work for my money...

I guess I envy those that fleece the sheep without feeding them proper.

[vorlon13]

I always had to work for my money...

I guess I envy those that fleece the sheep without feeding them proper.

Mormonism exacts quite a toll on their apologists. They are rarely schooled as to the actual church history and when the questions inevitably arise and they check PUBLISHED church documents that confirm the questions have difficult answers, their apologists have a very steep and unexpected learning curve to negotiate.

(an early revelation Joe Smith inflicted on his made up church which has come back to bite them again and again is that they were commanded by God to be a record keeping people. So they kept records. Unfortunately for the current Mormon hierarchy, a tremendous amount of this material was published at one time or another. Subsequent sea changes in LDS dogma, and even nearly every single revelation they received from God has been changed multiple times has been thoroughly documented and published by the church itself. The original polygamy revelation, for instance, originally commanded all wives subsequent to the first be Native American. God changed his mind several times on this revelation before he decided to pull the plug on it entirely. And for those willing to wade thru published LDS materials, all the versions of that revelation have been revealed. It's a tough topic for LDS apologists, repeated changes to the polygamy revelation calls into question their God's judgment, or their ability to discern just what in the Holy Hell He is going on about. And remember, no matter how twisted the trail of revelation revisions are, their apologists are REQUIRED to claim all the versions are mutually consistent and most of the revisions are for clarity or grammar, It's atough job, I feel for them. I don't feel for their minders and overseers, however)