posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 03:02 PM
Christian 'Apologetics'' are Fundamentally Flawed.... Deceiving the Unsophisticated by Trickery.
Logical fallacies and semantic trickery are the very essence of Christian apologetics, exploiting a general ignorance of science and responding to the
desire for quick-fix salvation and something easy on the brain cells.
The Apologists have no store of unknown Jesus artifacts, no cache of Jesus's secret memoirs– though they do have shrewd allies in the
relic-fabrication industry, so this may change! Rather, their circus tent is filled with nothing more substantial than subterfuge and suspect logic.
What holds it all together is that universal super glue – Faith.
The parade of flimflam and clownish knockabout would be a cause for merriment and laughter were it not for the sobering thought that this is as
'rational' as some Christians get. Heaven help us if they were ever to take over the government.
In the prelude to the Dark Ages the original Christian Apologists engaged in a similar pseudo-rational debate with the Greek philosophers, who at
first ignored the Christians and subsequently lampooned them as fools. But within three generations the fanatics of Christ had taken over the Roman
Empire and the laughing stopped.
Believe it or not, in a jaw-dropping departure from logical thinking, the Apologists' prime source of 'proof' for the existence of their storybook
hero is the storybook itself. The Bible is given the special privilege of confirming its own truth. In the language of religious deceit, the Bible is
held to be "unique" and "historically reliable". It's true because it says it's true. Handy, that. (So handy, in fact, that Muhammad used the
same "logic" in the Koran).
Can this chicanery be remotely justified because scripture gives accurate chronologies and verifiable descriptions of people, places and events? Not
at all. Like any book of fiction the Bible sets a series of (unlikely) events, a plethora of names, and a mass of incidental but uncheckable detail,
into a more or less known historical setting. Roman Judaea was real enough. 1st century Jerusalem certainly existed (you can visit the ruins). But any
work of historical fiction makes reference to the real world. A novel does not cease to be fiction no matter how "believable" it becomes.
The issue is, did a holy carpenter walk on water, raise the dead and get resurrected and taken up to heaven?