How To Be A Successful Apologist.

[_Ray A]

Although these lessons are about "effective" Bible apologetics, we can still learn a lot.

If you like good satire read all eight chapters at craptaculus.com:

How to be a Bible Apologist.

Sample, chapter 4:

How to be a Bible Apologist

Step Four: Ignore or re-interpret the last 600 years of scientific knowledge

Many of those who attack the Bible will try to use science to show that parts of the Bible aren't literally true. When someone does this, you have several courses of action available. You can:

a) Claim science is wrong.

b) Claim that the attacker believes science to be a god.

c) Claim science has always agreed with Bible.

d) Redefine "literal" (via step two) so you can claim the Bible doesn't actually say what the attacker claims.

While many apologists automatically choose the first option, the others are equally valid.

For example, when a Bible attacker tries to attack Genesis by saying "it isn't possible that there was a global flood because of scientific reasons x, y, and z," you can:

a) Claim that science is wrong and can't explain anything, and therefore reasons x, y, and z are just designed to mislead people into thinking there are problems with the Bible.

b) Claim that the attacker believes science to be a god. It doesn't actually address the issue, but it's fun.

c) Claim there is plenty evidence for a global flood and science will one day prove it and answer x, y, and z, and therefore science totally and completely agrees with the Bible.

d) Claim that the Bible doesn't say the flood was global, therefore reasons x, y, and z don't apply.

As an apologist, you are free to choose any of these, depending on the objections raised. (You should also be willing to accept all of them if the situation dictates.)

For example, we know that evolution simply does not happen; the literal reading of Genesis tells us that. But we can still also believe that evolution does happen in cases where it will help support the Bible.

"Really?" You say? Yes. During the global flood (if you read it that way), Noah built a big boat to hold all the different "kinds" of animals. The "problem" is, if you define a "kind" as a species, there wouldn't be room (if you acknowledge that). So if you define "kinds" as genuses or families, there just might be room possibly. So after the flood, all the animals evolved into the various species we have today on their ways back to their native lands. (See step three)

Another fun technique is to mention that some miracle depicted in the Bible is explainable by scientific means. However, you must be extremely careful when applying science to the miracles of the Bible. If you do it occasionally you can win an argument that such and such miracle was possible, and it just might quell some doubts in the semi-faithful. But just because a miracle can be explained by science, actually doing so to all of the miracles of the Bible would not be desirous: there'd be no miracles left!

[_Kishkumen]

Someone ought to write one on how to be a successful Book of Abraham apologist.

[_Ray A]

Someone ought to write one on how to be a successful Book of Abraham apologist.

Perhaps Kevin might be up to that. Maybe this will inspire him.

[_cinepro]

Someone ought to write one on how to be a successful Book of Abraham apologist.

I think that one's still a work in progress.

[_Danna]

funny!

my favourite quote from chapter two:

For example, the Bible clearly says that God hates homosexuality. That part is literal. The Bible also says that God hates mixing different fibers in clothing. That part is not literal.

anybody recognise this?

Shortcut: Before you bother to refute a critic, simply see if there is someone with a Ph.D with views similar to yours. If so, you win. The field of study doesn't matter: a Biblical apologist Ph.D. wins automatically in any argument on any topic

[_Danna]

Mopologists have been reading this! and it does not extend to mopology very well. On second thought, maybe mopologists just layer on a few techniques.

I had this used on me - almost literally -...

An example of this would be the global flood in Genesis. If you think this is causing a problem because of a (supposed) total lack of evidence of such an event, just say that when it said "all" the world was flooded, the word that was used in the old text was really not intended to mean "all" like it is commonly translated, it really just meant "some part of" the world. But again, this is optional: You could take any number of angles to make it literally true.

The un-named mopo kept claiming that the Hebrew word earth actually means land. So the global flood was local not global.

I pointed out, repeatedly, that the Book of Moses was not translated from Hebrew. It was not translated at all. Parts of it claim to be dictated by God. And it talks about a global flood of the earth.

My mopo could not get the point. I kept getting the Hebrew translation issue back like it was the last word. I gave up after pasting in word for word verses of the Book of Moses and contemplating the futility of arguing that God speaks Adamic, not Hebrew and how could a translation error occur between the mind of God and the mind of JSjr.

[_Dr. Shades]

The un-named mopo kept claiming that the Hebrew word earth actually means land. So the global flood was local not global.

You should've asked him any of the following questions:

• If the flood was only local, why did Noah bother building an ark?
• If the flood was only local, why did God say "I will destroy all flesh from the earth?"
• If the flood was only local, why did the wicked people all drown and not just walk uphill?
• If the flood was only local, why did Noah gather any animals?
• If the flood was only local, when God put the token of the rainbow in the sky afterward, what, exactly, was He promising never to do again? If He was promising never to cause another local flood, He sure broke that one, didn't He?
• If the flood was only local, how could it've been a temporal baptism of the earth by immersion?

[_why me]

However, to be a Mormon apologist on this board, does take a little SM experience. But...it can be very rewarding.

You know Ray, you have changed your routine. You used to be a monkey in the middle. You could take a center position. Now, you have done a left turn and rank with the most negative of critics. Maybe you need to post a second letter and tell us all what turned you from a fair guy to a RFMer.

I recall how you enter the postmormon morg to give those guys heck. Of course, they all loved bombed you and you left with a wonderful impression. But..you went there because of your middle of the road position. What happened Ray??

[_Ray A]

However, to be a Mormon apologist on this board, does take a little SM experience. But...it can be very rewarding.

You know Ray, you have changed your routine. You used to be a monkey in the middle. You could take a center position. Now, you have done a left turn and rank with the most negative of critics. Maybe you need to post a second letter and tell us all what turned you from a fair guy to a RFMer.

I recall how you enter the postmormon morg to give those guys heck. Of course, they all loved bombed you and you left with a wonderful impression. But..you went there because of your middle of the road position. What happened Ray??

Four letters: TBMs. And as Will pointed out, "how long halt ye between two opinions?" (I'm ever grateful to Will) Not that I've ever really "halted", I just tried to be reasonable with Mormons and tried to find that middle ground. I've become convinced it's not possible. It's a do or die, black and white religion, which is a pity (and the Mormons on MAD seem to be getting narrower, and narrower in thinking and I can hardly bear to post there now). You know, it's all either God's only way to salvation, or the greatest fraud in religious history. Modern Mormonism is no place for the open-minded, and the McConkie/Joseph Fielding Smith 1950s trend only seems to be gaining more and more momentum. You can't reason with people like them.

I hope that answers your question.