I mean, really?
(I'll be playing armchair psychologist here, so bear with me)
In the most recent episode of The Atheist Experience, one of the Christian callers stated that she believed in the Bible 100%. She was then asked if she believed that a snake could talk, and she affirmed that she did.
But something seemed odd about the way she said it. There was a slight hesitation, and her tone of voice noticeably changed. I found myself wondering if she was lying, because she knows that in order to claim that the Bible is completely accurate, you have to profess a belief in the silly parts, too (and if you don't, then you're just not a real Christian).
Now, maybe the change in voice was nothing more than her realizing that she was saying something that was embarrassingly stupid. But there's a part of me that feels like the so-called believers know this is BS. Imagine the following:
Ray Comfort, Ken Hamm, and Kirk Cameron walk into a bar, for the sole purpose of preaching the gospel to those who would imbibe the devil's brew. Ted Haggard hangs out at a different kind of bar, so he won't be joining them. One of the patrons has brought her pet boa constrictor. Right in the middle of Ray explaining the talking serpent in the garden, the snake in the bar shouts out, "Where's your evidence?!" The majority of the patrons, naturally, freak out.
Which of the following more accurately describes the actions of the apologists? Please, speculate profusely.
A. Ray speaks up, saying, "Calm down, everyone. I was just explaining to you that snakes can talk. This is quite normal, you see. There is no cause for alarm." The other two nod in agreement.
B. All three of them promptly soil themselves.
Personally, I'd have to go with B. But I want to know what you think.
(I'll be playing armchair psychologist here, so bear with me)
In the most recent episode of The Atheist Experience, one of the Christian callers stated that she believed in the Bible 100%. She was then asked if she believed that a snake could talk, and she affirmed that she did.
But something seemed odd about the way she said it. There was a slight hesitation, and her tone of voice noticeably changed. I found myself wondering if she was lying, because she knows that in order to claim that the Bible is completely accurate, you have to profess a belief in the silly parts, too (and if you don't, then you're just not a real Christian).
Now, maybe the change in voice was nothing more than her realizing that she was saying something that was embarrassingly stupid. But there's a part of me that feels like the so-called believers know this is BS. Imagine the following:
Ray Comfort, Ken Hamm, and Kirk Cameron walk into a bar, for the sole purpose of preaching the gospel to those who would imbibe the devil's brew. Ted Haggard hangs out at a different kind of bar, so he won't be joining them. One of the patrons has brought her pet boa constrictor. Right in the middle of Ray explaining the talking serpent in the garden, the snake in the bar shouts out, "Where's your evidence?!" The majority of the patrons, naturally, freak out.
Which of the following more accurately describes the actions of the apologists? Please, speculate profusely.
A. Ray speaks up, saying, "Calm down, everyone. I was just explaining to you that snakes can talk. This is quite normal, you see. There is no cause for alarm." The other two nod in agreement.
B. All three of them promptly soil themselves.
Personally, I'd have to go with B. But I want to know what you think.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1nDUO1D
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire