(August 28, 2012 at 9:48 am)Rhythm Wrote: 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.
