Why must Christian apologists tell lies?

[Angrboda]

I don't know whether bringing a dictaphone is kosher, but probably more useful would be to bring sound bites from prior Craig debates that you could play like a piano, and use them to frame your responses. Of course, if it were me, I'd probably add some beats and make some slabs of rhythm to pump up the volume. (I'm reminded of a friend who played a cruel joke on one of the secretaries one day. In her company, they used Macs for everything, so my friend assigned a different animal sound to every key. That poor woman.)

I returned, and saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise,
nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
— Ecclesiastes 9:11

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem to feel that pointing out abject ignorance in parts of the narrative is not relevant, that the "talking snake" bit has nothing to do with you, for example, because you don't believe in it. It is relevant, even in your case. Why don't you believe in the talking snake? Some miracles, but not that one? Some narratives, but clearly not this narrative? When determining which one of these feats of magic you have decided to cast your lot in with, why has this one been omitted? Have you ruled it out on grounds that would implicate some other feat of magic that you have ruled in?

If I had to choose between a talking snake and a divinely conceived, miracle peddling, risen christ...honestly, I'd take the snake. Snakes can at least be shown to exist.....

[DeistPaladin]

Apologetics is an inherently sleazy profession/pastime.

You start with the conclusion and look for reasons to believe it.

How could this NOT be an intellectually dishonest exercise.

[greneknight]

You seem to feel that pointing out abject ignorance in parts of the narrative is not relevant, that the "talking snake" bit has nothing to do with you, for example, because you don't believe in it. It is relevant, even in your case. Why don't you believe in the talking snake? Some miracles, but not that one? Some narratives, but clearly not this narrative? When determining which one of these feats of magic you have decided to cast your lot in with, why has this one been omitted? Have you ruled it out on grounds that would implicate some other feat of magic that you have ruled in?

If I had to choose between a talking snake and a divinely conceived, miracle peddling, risen christ...honestly, I'd take the snake. Snakes can at least be shown to exist.....

Hi Rhythm,

You make a lot of sense. As an altar boy and one who has been an altar boy for as long as I can remember, it's natural that I would believe in some of the teachings of my church. It's not that long ago when I believed in Santa Claus. It only very recently when I started reading adult non-fiction books like Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels. I'm still slowly formulating my thoughts on these things.

The reason why I brought up the talking snake is there was an atheist who brought it up in a debate with Craig and it was really irrelevant to the motion of the debate. I'm merely saying that the talking snake is not something most Christians believe in. Only a fringe group believes in this and they're all fundamentalists. At least the resurrection is a belief shared by almost all Christians but not the talking snake.

[The Grand Nudger]

And? Why the resurrection but not the snake? Let me just say here, that you seem to think that you can dismiss this problem by dismissing a group of people, you can't.

(People are willing to jettison little bits of a cherished idea if they feel that this might help to salvage the core of the notion..or deflect criticism..that's my personal opinion.)

The talking snake is relevant, again, if a person says "the events described in the bible are factually accurate". The response seems to be "some narratives, not that one", which is fine, but it leads to the question of "why this narrative but not that one".

[greneknight]

And? Why the resurrection but not the snake? Let me just say here, that you seem to think that you can dismiss this problem by dismissing a group of people, you can't.

(People are willing to jettison little bits of a cherished idea if they feel that this might help to salvage the core of the notion..or deflect criticism..that's my personal opinion.)

The talking snake is relevant, again, if a person says "the events described in the bible are factually accurate". The response seems to be "some narratives, not that one", which is fine, but it leads to the question of "why this narrative but not that one".

Of course you are right. There is no reason why one should accept the resurrection but not the talking snake. As I have said before, there is absolutely no evidence for God or the resurrection and there aren't any logical argument either. But religion is cultural. If I had been born in the Bible Belt region of the US, I'd probably accept the talking snake.

[frankiej]

Of course you are right. There is no reason why one should accept the resurrection but not the talking snake. As I have said before, there is absolutely no evidence for God or the resurrection and there aren't any logical argument either. But religion is cultural. If I had been born in the Bible Belt region of the US, I'd probably accept the talking snake.

You certainly are a strange one... we will make an atheist out of you yet. Quickly, get the deconversion chair!

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

Another debate I've seen is the one Craig had with Bart Ehrman. Craig was very rude and he insulted Ehrman many times. Craig's arguments were stupid but Craig is very good at inundating his opponent with stupid arguments but they are many so it's hard to counter all of them.

I read a transcript of that debate. I actually thought Ehrman did really good in that debate. The only thing I didn't understand was that Craig kept claiming over and over that the gospels are "independent" accounts and Ehrman never once corrected him.

---

...
You certainly are a strange one... we will make an atheist out of you yet. Quickly, get the deconversion chair!

[greneknight]

...

Another debate I've seen is the one Craig had with Bart Ehrman. Craig was very rude and he insulted Ehrman many times. Craig's arguments were stupid but Craig is very good at inundating his opponent with stupid arguments but they are many so it's hard to counter all of them.

I read a transcript of that debate. I actually thought Ehrman did really good in that debate. The only thing I didn't understand was that Craig kept claiming over and over that the gospels are "independent" accounts and Ehrman never once corrected him.

---

...
You certainly are a strange one... we will make an atheist out of you yet. Quickly, get the deconversion chair!

Yes, with Craig, you must deny everything he says. Craig is a very sly, greasy deceiver. If he claims there are 5 facts that "most" New Testament scholars accept, deny it! Say it's not true and even if it were, New Testament scholars are primarily Christians and of course they would accept as fact what they believe in faith. Even with Ally, Craig says the Gospels and St Paul's epistles are independent accounts.

[Mister Agenda]

Everything goes down hill when "god" was asserted to be real enough to possess attributes.

Don't strictly fictional entities still possess attributes? Doesn't Superman possess the attribute of "being Kryptonian", or "able to leap tall buildings in a single bound"?

Good point. Fictional characters possess imaginary attributes, which is generally not a problem. Characters that are supposed to be real with assigned attributes observable enough to rule them out if they can't be seen to exist or contradict each other are a problem for proponents of them being real.

For instance, if the Loch Ness monster had been given the property of shining brighter than the sun at night; or of also being Santa Clause; it's existence would have been ruled out long ago.