Back when I was a kid, I learned this silly song during a summer camp:
The contradictions were part of the silliness of the song but imagine the passage appeared in the Bible. Would that phase Christian apologists who insist that there are no contradictions in their sacred scripture? I'm going to role-play an apologist now based on the arguments I've heard in the past.
*ahem*
In verse one, the term "day" is often used to mean a period of time when the sun is up, in contrast to "night" but it also means a 24-hour period. This 24-hour period includes the nighttime. Consequently, we can conclude that the event of the demonically possessed dead bodies occurred at night. No contradictions so far.
Many fundy skeptics often laugh at verse two about two dead boys getting up to fight. This reveals their bias toward naturalism. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you may not have seen demons inhabit a corpse and reanimate it, doesn't mean such things could never happen. For those who believe in the holy scripture, it's not so difficult to accept. Besides, there is evidence of the supernatural in history. Such events are recorded in sacred scripture, our historical accounts of these ancient times.
In verse three, the demon-possessed corpses first lined themselves back-to-back in mockery of traditional pistol duels. Then they turned to face each other. It doesn't say, as many fundy atheists maintain, that they did both at the same time.
In verse four, they drew their swords and, with their other hand, drew a pistol to shoot each other. No contradiction.
There are varying degrees of deafness. Gunshots are loud enough so even the partially deaf could have heard them. These officers arrived on the scene and attempted to put down the demonically possessed corpses. Again, slaying the undead is something the fundy skeptics will scoff at but this is their bigotry in favor of naturalism.
Much has been made of verse seven by scoffers who like to claim the Bible openly admits to a lie. In fact, the word "lie" is actually based on the translation of the ancient Shladervian language in which the passage was written. The word is "shablavablacka" which could, in some context, be "lie" and, in others, "legend" or "fable". In this case, it is a recounting of a story of legend which happens, in this case, to be true.
Of course, the blind man couldn't see but he's still an eye-witness to the account, so to speak. He could hear the movement of the corpses and the subsequent fight, and therefore adds to the credibility of the story. He's what we call an "embarrassing witness". If the passage were a lie, they would have created a more compelling witness than a blind man. Consequently, the fact that one of our star witnesses is a blind man only adds to the credibility of the story.
So you see, there are no contradictions.
[End Role-Playing Exercise].
The point here is the core logical fallacy in apologetics is the pre-conceived notion. If you start with the assumption that something is true, you can come up with all manner of flimsy rationalizations to work your way toward the desired conclusion.
Quote:One day in the middle of the night,
two dead boys got up to fight.
Back-to-back, they faced each other.
Drew their swords and shot each other.
Two deaf policemen heard this noise.
Came to kill the two dead boys.
If you don't believe this lie is true,
you can ask the blind man; he saw it too.
The contradictions were part of the silliness of the song but imagine the passage appeared in the Bible. Would that phase Christian apologists who insist that there are no contradictions in their sacred scripture? I'm going to role-play an apologist now based on the arguments I've heard in the past.
*ahem*
In verse one, the term "day" is often used to mean a period of time when the sun is up, in contrast to "night" but it also means a 24-hour period. This 24-hour period includes the nighttime. Consequently, we can conclude that the event of the demonically possessed dead bodies occurred at night. No contradictions so far.
Many fundy skeptics often laugh at verse two about two dead boys getting up to fight. This reveals their bias toward naturalism. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you may not have seen demons inhabit a corpse and reanimate it, doesn't mean such things could never happen. For those who believe in the holy scripture, it's not so difficult to accept. Besides, there is evidence of the supernatural in history. Such events are recorded in sacred scripture, our historical accounts of these ancient times.
In verse three, the demon-possessed corpses first lined themselves back-to-back in mockery of traditional pistol duels. Then they turned to face each other. It doesn't say, as many fundy atheists maintain, that they did both at the same time.
In verse four, they drew their swords and, with their other hand, drew a pistol to shoot each other. No contradiction.
There are varying degrees of deafness. Gunshots are loud enough so even the partially deaf could have heard them. These officers arrived on the scene and attempted to put down the demonically possessed corpses. Again, slaying the undead is something the fundy skeptics will scoff at but this is their bigotry in favor of naturalism.
Much has been made of verse seven by scoffers who like to claim the Bible openly admits to a lie. In fact, the word "lie" is actually based on the translation of the ancient Shladervian language in which the passage was written. The word is "shablavablacka" which could, in some context, be "lie" and, in others, "legend" or "fable". In this case, it is a recounting of a story of legend which happens, in this case, to be true.
Of course, the blind man couldn't see but he's still an eye-witness to the account, so to speak. He could hear the movement of the corpses and the subsequent fight, and therefore adds to the credibility of the story. He's what we call an "embarrassing witness". If the passage were a lie, they would have created a more compelling witness than a blind man. Consequently, the fact that one of our star witnesses is a blind man only adds to the credibility of the story.
So you see, there are no contradictions.
[End Role-Playing Exercise].
The point here is the core logical fallacy in apologetics is the pre-conceived notion. If you start with the assumption that something is true, you can come up with all manner of flimsy rationalizations to work your way toward the desired conclusion.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
