• 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

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
The indiscretion I was talking about was the spilling of seed.

Yes. That was the 'indiscretion' I was talking about, too.

Humans are situational. Onan probably wouldn't have gotten into trouble for 'spilling the seed' had the reason been...masturbation or because he was with a prostitute...

The reason he did it, though, was the reason he was punished. That was, remember, rather clearly spelled out.

What Onan did was to deliberately sabotage his brother and his brother's wife, putting her up to disgrace and criticism (because her not becoming pregnant would have been seen as her fault) when she had NO choice in the matter.

He could have 'spilled his seed' all over the place, and not been in trouble, It's because he did it rather than give his brother's wife a child that he got into trouble.

He could have allowed someone else to marry her.
He could have appealed to the rule makers for another solution.

He wasn't killed because he 'spilled his seed.' He was killed because he was a hypocrite and was deliberately doing great harm to both his brother and his brother's wife. Spousal abuse, actually, of the nastier sort.

Onan was a pig.

And Balaam was an idiot who proved not even to be as smart as his donkey...who actually SAW that angel in the road trying to keep him from doing something incredibly stupid.

At least, that was the point of the story.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What if the donkey was telepathic? Have you guys ever thought of that? No.
Numbers 22:28-30 New International Version (NIV)
28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

29 Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

“No,” he said.



----



Genesis 38:9-10 New International Version (NIV)
9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his [seed] on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.



---



Question: Is Bible fundamentalism compatible with Critical Thinking?

View attachment 29961
If we are talking about a car what is presented is applicable since what we know factually is nature is one giant car and god is its designer creator that the universe randomly goes about its business accidentally, clearly crktical thinking is applicable.

My wife is calling gotta go in now!!!!
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Okay, here is my argument:

-When you apply Critical Thinking to the Bible, you reject the Bible. You can say that Fundamentalism and Critical Thinking are compatible, but Critical Thinking is not the term you're looking for.

-Though perhaps there is some undefined Christianized definition of Critical Thinking which says: "Critical Thinking exists when we find the meaning of Bible verses"
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
It is my understanding that fundamentalism does not equate with literalism as fundamentalism is more concerned with Biblical inerrancy. They recognize what is figurative, allegorical, where as the literalist regardless of evidence to the contrary (young earth creationists) insist on the literalist interpretation. If one holds the position that the Bible is without error that closes the door on a critical interpretation.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Numbers 22:28-30 New International Version (NIV)
28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

29 Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

“No,” he said.



----



Genesis 38:9-10 New International Version (NIV)
9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his [seed] on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.



---



Question: Is Bible fundamentalism compatible with Critical Thinking?

View attachment 29961
Short answer: No. Those who take the Creation story or the OP stories literally are not using Critical Thinking.

Another good question is "There are many miracles and magical events in the Bible". How come we haven't seen any in the last 1000 to 2000 years?
 

Jedster

Well-Known Member
Of counsel donkeys can speak, after all all they are really horses; here's the rpoof
LND1PypBnrU
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Question: Is Bible fundamentalism compatible with Critical Thinking?

If you mean, is a literal view of the Bible consistent with critical thinking, I would say no.
Critical thinking = the analysis of facts to form a judgment
Belief = an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof

I think, according to these definition, "Critical thinking" is impossible when we talk about "Belief", which is per definition "Not Fact"
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Animals have languages and God is able to translate it into an understanding in the mind of a man.
So... in other words....
Man was able to converse with animals through magic?

No different than a man figuring out what the dog wanted:

Stange dog wants the police to come to his house – one glance at the balcony and he quickly calls 911

The only difference is that the policeman didn't get the verbal translation, just the understanding of the dog's actions.

Meaning that that case is entirely different.

Infering intent from body language is not at all the same as having actual verbal communication.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So the dog WASN'T talking to the policeman

Indeed, he wasn't.
Dogs don't talk.
Only humans talk.

and DIDN'T know something was wrong with his owner?

Off course he knew.

And when he saw the policeman follow, he just RANDOMLY went to his house?

No.

WOW! You are SO perceptive. Are you an atheist? Just asking.

You should learn how analogies work.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I might be having second thoughts - on critical reflection it is hard to believe that "Lords" would actually speak through donkeys...like donkeys perhaps...but not through them
Didn't that donkey in Shrek speak as well? You might have the proof you need!! :D
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I thought we were talking critical thinking here.

I didn't ask if you understood the whole of an animals language (since science is still working on that) but rather if they did have a language to communicate by:

Stange dog wants the police to come to his house – one glance at the balcony and he quickly calls 911
It can easily be observed that animals don't communicate in complex sentences containing thoughts as concise as were expressed by this biblical donkey. They use short, meaningful bursts of communication for over-arching concepts like "I'm angry", "danger present", "help" or "emergency." If they could communicate in much the way that humans could, then it would necessarily mean that they grasped whole hosts of abstract thoughts and thought processes, they would much more easily be able to work together toward common goals, reason with one another over disputes, and generally much more easily deceive and trick we humans as they felt necessary. Instead, we see them easily isolated from one another, unable to cope with trickery, trapping, or human presented challenges. Hell... deer apparently can't even communicate to one another that they should be careful around those crazy solid-river things made of that shiny black material.

Besides, it's God we're talking about here. Why wasn't your excuse (because let's not get carried away here, this is exactly what it is - since you can have no way of verifying or providing evidence for any of these trails you're going down - which is typical of theists, of course, and so not unique or surprising, but something we should still always remain cognizant of) that God just used telepathy?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Critical thinking = the analysis of facts to form a judgment
Belief = an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof

I think, according to these definition, "Critical thinking" is impossible when we talk about "Belief", which is per definition "Not Fact"
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?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Numbers 22:28-30 New International Version (NIV)
28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

29 Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

“No,” he said.



----



Genesis 38:9-10 New International Version (NIV)
9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his [seed] on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.



---



Question: Is Bible fundamentalism compatible with Critical Thinking?

View attachment 29961

No, it is myth and should be read as such and not as literal history. In the first case we have a donkey given voice so that we can see a person struggle against the will of God. This experience foreshadowed for Balaam what God was about to do to the king who had summoned him. In other words Balaam was being treated by that king as he was treating that donkey.

In the second case another longer story is being told that has to do with how a families generations would play out. The man spilling his seed was disobeying his father's instruction and also, probably, his social duty to his family. His punishment is meant to express the notion that if one doesnt work to promote the family then one will die without having a family to carry on ones life. Then the father having lost two sons in this manner makes the same mistake but God uses the woman who was to be the mother of his Onan's fathers descendants to finally give him that descendant in spite of of himself.

Both stories use the fairy tale motif of repeating something three times to underscore that there is a reality against which someone's will is trying to maneuver around. Now whether you are a believer or not, we all experience in life that we may get in our own way, be our own worst enemy. We try to find a way around something that we want to avoid and still try to accomplish our goal even if avoidance brings failure. Accept reality in order to find satisfaction, obey the will of God who is the author of reality and you will have the benefit of a story with a happy ending.
 
Last edited:

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
It was a tongue in cheek statement. Critical thinking is both for atheists as it is for theists.

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".
 

sealchan

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

Why did you select these particular scenes from their larger story contexts?
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
No, it is myth and should be read as such and not as literal history. In the first case we have a donkey given voice so that we can see a person struggle against the will of God. This experience foreshadowed for Balaam what God what God was about to do to the king who had summoned him. In other words Balaam was being treated by that king as he was treating that donkey.

In the second case another longer story is being told that has to do with how a families generations would play out. The man spilling his seed was disobeying his father's instruction and also, probably, his social duty to his family. His punishment is meant to express the notion that if one doesnt work to promote the family then one will die without having a family to carry on ones life.

Then the father having lost two sons in this manner makes the same mistake but God uses the woman who was to be the mother of his Onan's fathers descendants to finally give him that descendant in spite of of himself.

Now whether you are a believer or not, we all experience in life that we may get in our own way, be our own worst enemy. We try to find a way around something that we want to avoid and still try to accomplish our goal even if avoidance brings failure. Accept reality in order to find satisfaction, obey the will of God who is the author of reality and you will have the benefit of a story with a happy ending.

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