Apologetics has a simple goal. Perhaps best expressed here:
https://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.co...ailed.html
All they seek to do is give themselves any bullshit reason they can think of to continue believing in fucking nonsense. That's how you end up with the absurd idea that the contradictions in the fucking bible are the result of the various gospel writers telling the same story in different ways. Or that their godboy was born in both 4 BC and 6 AD.
As Babinsky says above, Goldilocks is more probable.
Quote:Bible-believers are full of clever (and some not so clever) rationalizations. The crucial question, however, is not whether “answers” can be generated in response to Bible difficulties but whether credible answers can be produced. What is the best explanation? Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem. Thus, it is not surprising that different, conflicting answers are often presented side by side. It never seems to occur to these people that such logic will also support the story of Goldilocks and the three bears! Or the Koran. Or, anything else. Once we abandon the probable in favor of the improbable—or even the less probable—we have abandoned objectivity. Without objectivity, there is not much hope of finding the truth; we only succeed in confirming our own prejudiced views—even as a group of flat-Earth folks in California did for years in their newsletters.
https://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.co...ailed.html
All they seek to do is give themselves any bullshit reason they can think of to continue believing in fucking nonsense. That's how you end up with the absurd idea that the contradictions in the fucking bible are the result of the various gospel writers telling the same story in different ways. Or that their godboy was born in both 4 BC and 6 AD.
As Babinsky says above, Goldilocks is more probable.
