www

APOLOGETIC Dfense we was bored So went over fault we spent 12 hours on our myselfs and our my feelings The subject to address is intrinsic to signing Several times - and recently - have been accosted by propagandists of one kind or another. have reasonable agility and we ams all aggressive. So we was able to obscure our myselfs in lithe movement and, where appropriate and possible, overegging acts of destruction. In short, offered responses to these intrusions. This conforms to a view of essentialism. Why seek anchorage in a sea of piss, we say? Many have been religious. we aim a kind of missionary our myselfs, somewhat benighted in so being. (Or should you view this as opportunity to correct a poor misguided human being who has been brought to your presence for enlightenment, if not salvation? While many opponents of religion opt for the former, a more prudent policy would suggest the latter. More than likely the religious proponent to whom you are speaking will rarely encounter someone able to correct his illusions with some well chosen queries and poignant observations. The arrival of a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon at the door, or a Campus Crusade for Christ missionary at your dorm, should be viewed as an opportunity to expose religion in general and the Bible in particular for the frauds that they are. Victory is obtained not by fleeing the scene feeling that you won because they failed to convert you, but only by remaining at the barricades and showing them the error of their ways. Before meaningful dialogue can occur, however, apologists and missionaries must first be shown the error of their ways. Before they are going to listen to what you have to offer, they must first be convinced something is awry with what they believe. Only when they begin to acknowledge weaknesses on the part of their most cherished beliefs can a truly worthwhile encounter become viable. And for that to occur, most religionists will have to be given proof that comes from that which they hold most dear, namely their literature or sources. If one relies primarily upon bringing scientific or historical information to the Bible, for instance, to prove the Bible is erroneous in many respects, the religious propagandists are simply going to say: “I don’t care what you have. If it says the Bible is false then it is erroneous. Why? Because the Bible is divinely inspired and they aren’t.” So to influence millions it is unproductive to use extrabiblical information against the Bible. It will simply be discounted as so much devil’s handiwork. Instead, critics of Scripture should go within the Bible and compare verse with verse. When something in Deuteronomy is saying something in Exodus is a lie, or something in Chronicles is saying something in Samuel or Kings is false, or something in Mark is contending a comment in Matthew is erroneous – that’s an entirely different matter. That is far more difficult to discount, minimize or ignore. In effect, armed with information of this kind you don’t have something outside the Bible saying the Bible is false; you have the Bible saying the Bible is false – and that is far more potent and effective. The only drawback to this approach, however, is that it requires a degree of biblical knowledge that is at least comparable to that of the apologist. Assuming the requisite knowledge on your part, the question then becomes one of deciding how you should proceed. For openers I would suggest some well chosen questions, since the theology of your counterpart will more than likely be grounded in biblical fundamentalism. After fourteen years of publishing a periodical entitled Biblical Errancy, I have decided that the best questions are those which are simple, non-interpretive, present in nearly all versions, reasonably substantive, and poignant. Religionists in general and biblicists in particular, especially fundamentalists, view their defense of religion as being comparable to the Dutch man holding his finger in the dike. If one hole is allowed to remain unplugged, there goes the entire barrier. So one can expect an initial defense that is ardent, resolute, and sometimes strident. Questions to Ask For many years, I have used the following questions in pamphlets because of their simplicity and effectiveness: Why are we being punished for Adam's sin? After all, he ate the forbidden fruit, we didn’t. It’s his problem not ours – especially in light of Deut. 24;16 which says that children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers. For justice to exist, the punishment must fit the crime. No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a limit. Yet, Hell’s punishment is infinite. So where’s the justice? How can 2 Kings 8:26 (which says Ahaziah began to rule at age 22) be reconciled with 2 Chron. 22:2 (which says he was 42)? While on the cross, Jesus is supposed to have said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). How could Jesus be our savior when he couldn’t even save himself? Those aren’t the words of a man voluntarily dying for our sins. Those are the words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be!)