[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Actually, although I tend to avoid creationists and so haven’t tried this one out yet, I wonder what would happen if you pushed their nose in a Biblical contradiction. So, for example, 1 Samuel says David killed Goliath; 2 Samuel 21:19 says Elhanan killed Goliath.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t call it a contradiction, more of a culture name mistake, and lack of specificity. David killed Jones and Elhanan killed Jones. Or more correctly David killed Ronald Jones, and Elhanan killed Aaron Jones.
Compare 2 Samuel 21:19 with 1 Chronicles 20:5.
Oh, and I think this whole Elhanan situation is chronologically later than David and Goliath which happened in 1 Samuel 17.
[QUOTE=kangaroo_in_black]
I wouldn’t call it a contradiction, more of a culture name mistake, and lack of specificity. David killed Jones and Elhanan killed Jones. Or more correctly David killed Ronald Jones, and Elhanan killed Aaron Jones.
Compare 2 Samuel 21:19 with 1 Chronicles 20:5.
Oh, and I think this whole Elhanan situation is chronologically later than David and Goliath which happened in 1 Samuel 17.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if you didn’t like that one, there are 387 more contradictions listed here. Not all of them are genuine contradictions (i.e., many have legitimate explanations), but many of them don’t have a satisfactory explanation.
Maybe I’m just too cynical, but I think simple answers to complex problems and a socially-approved outlet for some of the darker impulses of human nature (intolerance and the like) is what a lot of people want from religion. They don’t want a religion that makes them think, doesn’t offer simple answers, and tells them they are not doing the right thing when they are trying to gain power and control over others. The theology of the religion can say you should love others and be nice to them, but if it’s to have mass appeal, in practice it should allow intolerance, power, and control at the expense of others.
I think simple answers are a large part of the appeal of young-earth creationism and biblical literalism. It doesn’t ask people to think about or understand difficult concepts, or accept that not all the answers are known.
[/QUOTE]
One can call this the Lowest Common Denomination theory of religion. I rather suspect you’re correct. Far easier to be in a religion which tells you that your biases are supported by God then to think that the other guy might have a point. No religion ever went bust for underestimating the theological sophistication of the American public, one might say.
Good “religions” do exist. I got married in the Ethical Culture Society of Philadelphia, but they weren’t exactly able to build mega-churches, and are not likely to ever do so. If only they could.