Why does Luke say that the people of Nazareth were going to throw Jesus off of a cliff when there are no such cliffs in Nazareth?

I posted this elsewhere but it's the same idea. They seem to follow more or less the basic plan for any type of apologetic, which is as follows (with a few more points I've added):

  1. (In actual conversation) First you are unrelentingly cynical about what your opponent claims that actual reality is. (e.g. "Are you sure there are no cliffs in Nazereth? Prove it! Prove it to me right here, right now, that there was not a single cliff in all of Nazareth! Prove it! Oh you just need Jesus")
  2. When it is clear that there is a conflict between what the book ostensibly says, you start by redefining the passages: "When it says 'cliff' it really means maybe a 'big rock' or a 'tall building'"
  3. Demonstrate that in a vague way it is compatible with reality
  4. Anyone that says has a different interpretation is misinterpreting the book, and you know this because A, B, and C.
  5. Maintain that the truth of the story doesn't actually matter because it's really the central story that counts (e.g. "well people disagreed at the time about whether or not the Titanic broke in half before it sank, does that mean the Titanic didn't sink?")
  6. Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager. (e.g. "what are you really mad about, /u/awdavis2015? I can see that you're questioning a lot of things. I predict something in your life will happen soon that will change the way you see things. It will happen soon. I know because God told me." etc.)

You can't argue by contradiction in this way and expect to make progress because *ahem* the supernatural doesn't actually exist, so the book can just be redefined because the limit of interpretation isn't based on reality, it's based on your mental gymnastics. But a book can be totally internally consistent and totally false, so I recommend challenging the latter, not the former.

/r/DebateReligion Thread