"Contemporary popular apologists tend to look for any way to salvage the text, no matter how unlikely or untenable the argument. They'll use scholarly sources selectively, or pounce on one scholar's argument and run away with it, without any concern for the fact the vast majority of scholars haven't been persuaded by it. They're not interested in what's plausible, only what's "possible," if it serves their immediate purposes. They trade in eisegesis, wild speculation, and fanciful interpretations, reading into the text what isn't there, indeed, what's often contradicted by the very passages they cite...I've noticed the same tendencies myself, which is one of the many reasons that I've taken pains to distance myself from apologists in recent months. I've said it many times in the past and I will say it again: Truth never needs falsehood to defend it. If you have to lie to support your position, it is a very good indicator that your position is wrong.
"But they seem oblivious to the real harm they're doing. Not only are they giving permission for Christians to be dishonest with the material, they're reinforcing delusions that disconnect well-meaning Christians from reality...
"These apologists are perpetuating an insular Christian culture, giving well-meaning Christians permission to switch off their brains and their consciences and go about their business, pretending everything is all right. The apologists don't care to convince those struggling on the margins of faith - they're preaching only to the converted, only to those who are looking for easy answers to questions others are asking them, but which they aren't asking themselves."
Thom Stark, Is God a Moral Compromiser?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Why I don't like modern apologists