PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
You forgot Ken, afterall he provided the entertainment.
Of course. I just don't know how to put it into words.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You forgot Ken, afterall he provided the entertainment.
The dog was communicating, but he was not talking in English and is not known to utilize a language that is anything like a human language that could be translated into one. Extrapolating that and claiming God did it, is not an argument. It is not critical thinking. It is dogma in a steel trap trying to gnaw its own leg off.That is your critical thinking reply? WOW!
So the dog WASN'T talking to the policeman and DIDN'T know something was wrong with his owner? And when he saw the policeman follow, he just RANDOMLY went to his house?
WOW! You are SO perceptive. Are you an atheist? Just asking.
I am not. I am also not a fundamentalist. I use critical thinking.I dunno if he is or isn't. But this thread might be the final push I need to get to the much-dreaded lair of atheism.
I am not. I am also not a fundamentalist. I use critical thinking.
I have found that the witness of fundamentalist Christianity has probably resulted in the evolution of more atheists than any other source.I dunno if he is or isn't. But this thread might be the final push I need to get to the much-dreaded lair of atheism.
Many were raised in fundamentalist or conservative evangelical families at least here in the statesI have found that the witness of fundamentalist Christianity has probably resulted in the evolution of more atheists than any other source.
Thanks.Yes you do. Like I said in that other thread... I declare you my new favorite bunny.
When they tell their stories, I have noted they often start out describing a conservative fundamentalist upbringing.Many were raised in fundamentalist or conservative evangelical families at least here in the states
When they tell their stories, I have noted they often start out describing a conservative fundamentalist upbringing.
Fundamentalists are their own worst enemies in my opinion.
OK... NOW we are talking. Let's look at it critically.
Do animals have a language by which they communicate by?
See why its not a good idea to assume those who criticize Christianity and the Bible are atheists?Hmmmm... I think atheism doesn't allow critical thinking.
Alright. That resolves the OP I spent 20 minutes on finding the verses, and posting in debates for careful consideration and refutation.
I live my life rather conservatively, and I was probably the most conservative of my siblings. My parents were conservative too, but not by modern, fundamentalist, conservative standards. They were, more realistically, moderates with some views that leaned conservative and some that leaned liberal. They were definitely not religious fundamentalists.I grew up in a fundie family with an atheist dad. Was hard.
....and the use of these stories, which both make a rather important moral and ethical point, can't be examined through 'critical thinking...' why, precisely?
I mean, really; Aesop's fables often use talking animals and inanimate objects. They all have some rather pointed, er, points.
In the NT Jesus taught with parables to make points. Do you think that there REALLY WAS a man who left his servants with ten, five and one talent to take care of?
Do you think that there really was a Samaritan who found someone beaten by the side of the road?
What was the POINT of the story of Balaam's talking donkey?
What was the POINT of what Onan did, when he took his brother's wife for his own, and then cheated on the reason he was supposed to do that, denying her a child because it wouldn't be seen as HIS? Obeying the cultural rules so that he looked good in public even though the woman didn't have any choice, and then completely undermining the reason FOR that cultural rule, punishing her for something over which she had no control.
Okay. A literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't fit a traditional definition of Critical Thinking. Donkeys don't talk. A good God doesn't kill people over small indiscretions.
If you are talking about Onan, that wasn't a 'small indiscretion." THAT was huge.
The indiscretion I was talking about was the spilling of seed.
Complex question(s): Complex question - Wikipedia
Non sequitur.
I didn't commit that fallacy. YOU sort of pulled a false dichotomy, by assuming that 'critical thinking" regarding those stories MUST BE LIMITED to whether they were literally true, when in fact the bible is full of stories that are NOT literally true (Jesus' parables, for instance) but that can indeed be examined through critical thinking about the point of the text.
You did not mention, in the OP, that you were concerned about biblical literalism. After all, to those of us who don't have a problem with parables and stories that might not be factual, but which have lessons to teach, THAT assumption would make no sense.
Didn't even occur to me that you were attacking the literal truth of those stories, push come to shove. You should have said so.