![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Self-Referential Game of Twister
Feb. 2nd, 2008 01:06 amhttp://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/08/a-self-referent.html
A Self-Referential Game of Twister: What Religion Looks Like From the Outside
Here's the thing, Rev. Cawley. I'm not dying to continue the point-counterpoint debate on the points you raised.
Instead, I want to step back for a moment and give you an idea of what your arguments sound like to someone who isn't already a Christian. Not just to someone who's a pretty convinced atheist, but to someone who doesn't know what they think one way or another, who's looking at different religious beliefs and deciding what to think. You seem to be at least somewhat sincere about wanting to understand non-believers, and I want to give you, and other believers, an idea of what religion -- and religious apologetics -- looks like to us.*****
When it comes to some Bible verses (such as the ones about hell), you say, "These shouldn't be taken literally. You have to see them in context: the context of the times, the context of Jesus's other teachings, etc. It's a mistake to interpret them too literally."
But when it comes to other verses, you say, "Look, how wonderful! The divine word of God! Isn't it inspiring?"
Similarly, when there are factual things that the Bible got right, you say, "Look how accurate it is! It's clearly a trustworthy source!" But when faced with Biblical inaccuracies and inconsistencies, again you say, "It's a mistake to take the Bible too literally."
This is what non-believers call cherry-picking. And it drives us nuts.
From people who are just as convinced as you are that their version is the right one, and who have equally extensive arguments to support their positions.
And all these versions are different.
In some cases, radically and wildly different, and completely in opposition to one another.
