(August 28, 2012 at 9:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: 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.
