Why must Christian apologists tell lies?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

"Apologetics means never having to say you're sorry."

[Cato]

I'm merely saying that the talking snake is not something most Christians believe in.

Your attitude on this will change if you ever get to visit the southern United States. We can throw Kansas, Missouri and Utah in for good measure.

[EscapingDelusion]

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.

Unfortunately, greneknight, here in America that "fringe group" consists of 40% to 50% of our country. In other words, more than 125 million people here in the U.S. likely believe in that talking snake. On the other side, only 15% of Americans accept the FACT of evolution. We have a long way to go...

[pocaracas]

The USA... looks like it's heading for the idiocracy that was foretold in the movie by that name... :p

[Mystic]

GreneKnight, you keep mentioning belief is cultural. Do you believe somehow you have scent of the truth through your cultural experience? If not, then why do you believe?

[DeistPaladin]

The USA... looks like it's heading for the idiocracy that was foretold in the movie by that name... :p

I found that movie funny and scary at the same time.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

greneknight Wrote: I'm merely saying that the talking snake is not something most Christians believe in.

Actually, Genesis does not mention a snake, it says 'serpent',which means it was probably a small dragon. That's much more plausible.

[Angrboda]

"Apologetics means never having to say you're sorry."

I believe you meant, "Apologetics means never having to say you're wrong."

[CliveStaples]

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.

What is an "imaginary attribute"? Is it an attribute that can only exist in the imagination? Is it an attribute that only happens to exist in the imagination (e.g., the attribute "being a Republican and having won the 2008 U.S. presidential election), but could have existed in the actual world?

I don't see what the difference is between a fictional entity possessing an attribute and a fictional entity possessing an imaginary attribute.

---

I believe you meant, "Apologetics means never having to say you're wrong."

Being right means never having to say you're wrong. Shouldn't the people who think religion is foolish be interested in good apologetics--good defenses of religious belief?

Maybe such a thing isn't even possible (I'd like to see that proof). But it seems like an interesting pursuit, in the sense that if a good argument exists that religious belief is justified, then there's at least a possible way to justify religious belief.

[DeistPaladin]

Being right means never having to say you're wrong. Shouldn't the people who think religion is foolish be interested in good apologetics--good defenses of religious belief?

Maybe such a thing isn't even possible (I'd like to see that proof). But it seems like an interesting pursuit, in the sense that if a good argument exists that religious belief is justified, then there's at least a possible way to justify religious belief.

If religion were right, there would be no need for apologetics. Apologetics is not the art of searching for the truth. Apologetics is the art of taking a preconceived ideology and looking for reasons to believe it.