Friday, January 29, 2010

Apologist Logic

How might an apologist respond to my argument that:

1) Animals don't talk.

2) There are talking animals in the Bible, so therefore

3) The Bible is not true.

The following steps might be the logic an apologist would come up with:

1) There are talking animals in the Bible.

2) The Bible MUST be true.

3) Parrots can talk

4) An ancient civilization has two words for "parrot" and "snake". These two words are very similar.

5) Therefore, it was actually a talking parrot in the Bible and the translator accidentally put "snake" instead of "parrot".

6) Yeah! It must be true afterall!

7) Elaborate the above 6 points with heaps of irrevalent bullshit.

Can you see that no matter how absurd their defense is, they actually believe it explains away all their troubles? Any answer, no matter how completely far fetched, will do. As long as there IS an answer, it doesn't matter what it is. Truth is expendable as long as the myth is defended.

Internet Mormons are no different. In the end, something has to change in order for the rest of the story to stay true. In this case, the snake was changed to a parrot. But does this argument hold water? Let me show you why it wouldn't, using LDS scriptures and prophetic teachings...

D&C 76: 28

"And while we were yet in the Spirit, the Lord commanded us that we should write the vision; for we beheld Satan, that old serpent, even the devil, who rebelled against God, and sought to take the kingdom of our God and his Christ—"

Notice how, in the D&C, Satan is referred to as the serpent. Now, if it actually was a parrot in the Garden of Eden, wouldn't prophets be teaching the correct principle? Isn't that what the restoration was all about? To correct the mistakes of the old church and the Bible? So if the animal in the Garden of Eden was actually a parrot, why do modern scriptures and prophets still teach that it was a snake or serpent?

Point this out to an Internet Mormon and he will probably come up with some bullshit about why the actual type of animal form satan took is not really relavent. In other words, he will shrug it off with a desperate explanation and then testify that he still knows it's true.

This, of course, is just an example that I came up with out of my head. I don't know if there is any ancient civilization that actually has two similar words for snake and parrot. But if I was an apologist, it doesn't matter. Just tell them that there is and they will believe you. You're the "scholar" so you must know.

This type of reasoning is used to defend all aspects of Mormonism. I was recently talking with Seth R., an internet Mormon, who was trying to explain to me why the proof that the Book of Abraham is false is irrevalent. He tried using defenses like, "Egyptian pictograms were popular in certain quarters and were often taken, copied, and adapted to stories beyond the original Egyptian meaning."

Is that so? Where is the reference you conveniently forgot to supply? (If you give me a reference to any FARMS or FAIR material, then I will just laugh in your face. Where is their reference?)

My argument: The papyrus was dated 2000 years after Abraham's time.

Seth's reply: It was actually a copy produced by a scribe 2000 years later.

My argument: Sounds plausable, but Joseph Smith claimed that the papyrus was literally written by the hand of Abraham himself.

Seth's argument: So? What is to stop the scribe from just writing that down. That was really common practice (no reference provided).

My argument: If a scribe wrote a copy of Abraham's writings, then why does the translation have nothing to do with Abraham?

Seth: Because you need a deeper understanding to be able to translate the actual message.

Do you see how the bullshit just keeps getting thicker and thicker? Seth is digging himself into a hole that takes more and more BS to maintain. The simple explanation is simply that Smith found a piece of papyrus and pretended to be able to translate it. That's the only explanation that does not require a TON of mental gymnastics.

Oh, and make a reference to "mental gymnastics" or "jungle gym" and suddenly his next defense tactic is to accuse you of calling names.

When you point out that he's full of shit because you have never called him a name (and that "jungle gym" is not a name) he will next accuse you of getting agitated and will then tell you that he's won the debate because you lost your cool first.

What the fuck? That's your pathetic defense?

Here's a link to the comment section where this discussion took place. Then you can see that nothing I have stated here is out of context (because that will be his next argument).

A lot was said in this comment section. The discussion about the Book of Abraham begins about 2/3 of the way through it.

I don't need to call anyone names. If you use these types of defense tactics, then you ARE a moron!

No comments: