I’m sure this has probably been discussed before but - what the heck…
There seem to be a number of common apologetic arguments out there that (IMHO) are just not very good and should be avoided. Two that pop to mind are…
The argument about “graven images” and the defense that these are OK since “most people were illiterate” and that "Books were expensive and so the stain glass (or whatever) was a way to tell the stories… The problem I find with this argument is that most people were likely illiterate in the OT times as well. Literacy does not seem to play into the prohibition or the relaxing of the prohibition on images.
The (seemingly) popular 33,000 protestant churches…The study on which it is based is flawed and while certainly it is good to try to make the point that there are just too many conflicting belief systems out there, this number only serves to divert the conversation from useful paths.
Comments? other arguments that are commonly used that are problematic???