• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bible & Critical Thinking

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It still, I think, revealed an element of truth, my friend: that you thought the assertions I made in the OP and beyond weren't me "Critically Thinking".

To be honest, I did react some. A byproduct of evangelist humanist previous post against Christianity with his statement.

My apologies and asking forgiveness.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Alright. Well if the Bible is one big allegory that isn't literal, I might select a "better" book to get my allegories from.

It has excellent allegories I think and has gone on to inspire centuries of literature.

Still I do prefer some of the later Star Trek series more than the earlier ones...but I see the character of the latter in the former.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
To be honest, I did react some. A byproduct of evangelist humanist previous post against Christianity with his statement.

My apologies and asking forgiveness.

You are not only forgiven by me, but I do admit I humored the crowd a bit in this thread as part of debate, and that I think you are a good member.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
So, when you go to work and "believe" you will get a paycheck, no critical thinking is involved because you don't know if the company will close the very week that you are expecting a paycheck? You just "believe" it will remain open?
There is 1 difference ... the Divine paycheck you get once when you die, so until then no "factual experiences" ... unless being enlightened before
(or of course the Divine grants you the experience while being alive ... but that does not happen on daily basis is my experience)
But it is true ... we know nothing for sure, we expect to wake up next morning... but???. Hence the advice to say "Deo Volente" when planning ahead
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Complex question. To answer it would be to imply I agree with your view on "larger story contexts" here.

Well to not answer it might imply that any expression of reasoning must be composed of a series of partial statements that stand alone in their reasoning. In a purely rational argument you may be correct. But in a story, whether historical or fictional, any implied moral may be seen in the sum of its parts rather than its parts.

In this case the audience needs to be drawn into the questions raised by the earlier parts of the story with some measure of doubt in order to more fully appreciate the message being told in the larger part. The ambiguity of the justice seen in these pieces of the story are resolved in the context of the larger story. The doubt one expresses towards the incidents one experiences in life should not divert one from ones faith in the broader experience of that same life. It is a deep truth of human experience that we are ready to condemn the whole for a perceived failure of a part, but in a systemic reality this is utter foolishness.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
So, when you go to work and "believe" you will get a paycheck
Is funny your reply just now ... about 30 minutes ago I was thinking "that's a long time ago I `spoke` with KenS"
So thinking became true ... similar "believing might come true too" ... that I believe, but I am not sure 100% ... 90% sure max:)
(There used to be a teacher who never gave 100% on exams ... 90% max. ... the 100% he reserved for God alone; I like that idea ... keeps me humble)
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Well to not answer it might imply that any expression of reasoning must be composed of a series of partial statements that stand alone in their reasoning. In a purely rational argument you may be correct. But in a story, whether historical or fictional, any implied moral may be seen in the sum of its parts rather than its parts.

In this case the audience needs to be drawn into the questions raised by the earlier parts of the story with some measure of doubt in order to more fully appreciate the message being told in the larger part. The ambiguity of the justice seen in these pieces of the story are resolved in the context of the larger story. The doubt one expresses towards the incidents one experiences in life should not divert one from ones faith in the broader experience of that same life. It is a deep truth of human experience that we are ready to condemn the whole for a perceived failure of a part, but in a systemic reality this is utter foolishness.

Alright. But there comes a point when someone has to think, "Only a skilled theologian knows which stories are literal and which aren't."

And I'm not interested in being a skilled theologian of a book I don't have a ton of faith in.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Alright. But there comes a point when someone has to think, "Only a skilled theologian knows which stories are literal and which aren't."

And I'm not interested in being a skilled theologian of a book I don't have a ton of faith in.

Dispense with the theologian altogether and read the story.

Actually any of these old stories are greatly aided by those who through either knowledge of stories and story-telling (which is closer to my area of expertise) or though knowledge of the culture itself can lend a small hand in providing context for the story.

I would recommend to no one to read the Bible as literal history and each event evidencing God's justice as a full stand-alone example of the morality it is trying to teach.. In that, its truth is fundamentally flawed just as our experience of reality as favorable to morality apart from our own efforts to "make it so" is fundamentally flawed. But in the Jewish Testament at least we often see God as the author both of a harsh reality AND of a morality we are meant to represent in spite of that harsh reality. It requires a definite faith to see that us humans in our beliefs or attitudes can make of reality a stage upon which morality can prevail. The message of the Bible should be seen that it requires our efforts to make of God's creation an experience of God's and humanities sense of morality. That sense of morality is, after all, one and the same. This is true whether we see God as a personification of humanities' understanding of its own ultimate experience or whether we see any truth within the manipulative mouth of a talking snake in the verse Genesis 3:5:

"For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

And I should add lest we make the quick, safe conclusion regarding the untrustworthiness of the serpent as a way to dismiss this thought, we can consider the nearby verse Genesis 3:22:

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”

Here God is both the author of an amoral reality and a promoter of the desire to act morally within that reality. To this mystery I would add the intentionally unspoken but obvious notion that God is also the instigator of humanities' step into moral knowledge out of an amoral reality from which humanity has emerged.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@AT-AT ,

I think what you are observing is a dogmatic approach to religion that discourages critical thinking. A dogmatic approach denies new information and views any change in tradition as negative.

Fundementalists, in my opinion, seem to be dogmatic in their approach to religion. But there are many outliers.

Regarding the bible specifically, the stories supposedly took place a long time ago. Belief that they are true doesn't automatically represent a lack of critical thinking.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Alright. That resolves the OP I spent 20 minutes on finding the verses, and posting in debates for careful consideration and refutation.

Keep in mind that it is impossible to be a well
informed and intellectually honest fundy.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Dispense with the theologian altogether and read the story.

Actually any of these old stories are greatly aided by those who through either knowledge of stories and story-telling (which is closer to my area of expertise) or though knowledge of the culture itself can lend a small hand in providing context for the story.

I would recommend to no one to read the Bible as literal history and each event evidencing God's justice as a full stand-alone example of the morality it is trying to teach.. In that, its truth is fundamentally flawed just as our experience of reality as favorable to morality apart from our own efforts to "make it so" is fundamentally flawed. But in the Jewish Testament at least we often see God as the author both of a harsh reality AND of a morality we are meant to represent in spite of that harsh reality. It requires a definite faith to see that us humans in our beliefs or attitudes can make of reality a stage upon which morality can prevail. The message of the Bible should be seen that it requires our efforts to make of God's creation an experience of God's and humanities sense of morality. That sense of morality is, after all, one and the same. This is true whether we see God as a personification of humanities' understanding of its own ultimate experience or whether we see any truth within the manipulative mouth of a talking snake in the verse Genesis 3:5:

"For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

And I should add lest we make the quick, safe conclusion regarding the untrustworthiness of the serpent as a way to dismiss this thought, we can consider the nearby verse Genesis 3:22:

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”

Here God is both the author of an amoral reality and a promoter of the desire to act morally within that reality.

Yeah but suppose I read The Hobbit by Tolkien. It's a great book. But suppose in the book, the plot is about time-traveling into Sauron's fist in a distant past and involves stories of incest between Gollum and Bilbo. I wouldn't read it. Then suppose someone told me "It tells the story of mankind if you read it just right". Do I still read it?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Yes.
Often it takes a lot of critical thinking, along with prayer and insight from the Holy Spirit, if one desires to get beyond superficial, surface reading and understand the point God is making in certain passages of the scriptures.

Is that why you have so little success with
understanding that stories like the 6 day poof
and flood are just stories of things that did not
happen?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Is funny your reply just now ... about 30 minutes ago I was thinking "that's a long time ago I `spoke` with KenS"
So thinking became true ... similar "believing might come true too" ... that I believe, but I am not sure 100% ... 90% sure max:)
(There used to be a teacher who never gave 100% on exams ... 90% max. ... the 100% he reserved for God alone; I like that idea ... keeps me humble)

Stupid teacher who thinks he is capable of writing
a perfect test.
 

Audie

Veteran Member

My favourite example to illustrate the problem
comes with a hilarious editors note at the end.

From Dr. K Wise, a yec paleontologist.

I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. [Ed. note: Although Scripture should be our final authority, Christianity is not a blind faith. See Why use apologetics for evangelism?] Here I must stand.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I think I should stress that if my side does have a pretty strong side in this thread, it's because traditional definitions of Critical Thinking tilt in our favor. So the other side could present great arguments, but still maybe lose in the category of linguistics.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I laughed because Audie's claim is funny. It certainly is false if taken literally.

Really i think she is only talking about a subset of fundementalists. Look at her example. Young Earth Creationists are a dogmatic subset of fundamentalists.
 
Top