T
Tao_Equus
Guest
But did the sun stop?!! 
Thomas: Did the sun stop moving?
- Thread starter Nick the Pilot
- Start date
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Brian,
We need to have critical-thinking skills. We need to teach critical-thinking skills to others. The example that is often given is, what about a Buddhist who is married to a Christian, and they have children. Should the Buddhist parent teach their child to read the Bible with a critical mind, even though it offends the other parent? Yes!
(Have you heard of the cases of Christian spouses who forbid their Buddhist spouses to even teach Buddhism to their children?)
Many non-Christians in this world are attacked because they refuse to accept the Bible. We need to teach them coping skills to survive the onslaught Christians put upon them. Your Forum provides us with that service, and I hope you will allow us non-Christians to continue to learn how to defend ourselves against Christians.
We need to have critical-thinking skills. We need to teach critical-thinking skills to others. The example that is often given is, what about a Buddhist who is married to a Christian, and they have children. Should the Buddhist parent teach their child to read the Bible with a critical mind, even though it offends the other parent? Yes!
(Have you heard of the cases of Christian spouses who forbid their Buddhist spouses to even teach Buddhism to their children?)
Many non-Christians in this world are attacked because they refuse to accept the Bible. We need to teach them coping skills to survive the onslaught Christians put upon them. Your Forum provides us with that service, and I hope you will allow us non-Christians to continue to learn how to defend ourselves against Christians.
Hi all —
Whilst I endorse Nick's high-minded sentiment, once again I do wish that he could express such without undermmining his own argument with the need to injure the reputation of those he chooses to oppose. Surely among the principles of critical thinking is balance and objectivity?
Let me address the issues implicit in his post:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
definition from wikipedia.
If we are serious about 'critical thinking', might I suggest a discussion of critical thinking as exemplified by philosophers from our respective camps, utilising the standards of academia as our median?
I would cite Aquinas, for example, or if someone more current, Bernard Lonergan (Catholic) or Paul Ricoeur (Protestant).
Who would a Theosopher cite?
Thomas
Whilst I endorse Nick's high-minded sentiment, once again I do wish that he could express such without undermmining his own argument with the need to injure the reputation of those he chooses to oppose. Surely among the principles of critical thinking is balance and objectivity?
Let me address the issues implicit in his post:
Yes we do.
Yes we do.
But if the example was offered in a critical-thinking forum it would be tossed out as a classic straw man argument:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
definition from wikipedia.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
If we are serious about 'critical thinking', might I suggest a discussion of critical thinking as exemplified by philosophers from our respective camps, utilising the standards of academia as our median?
I would cite Aquinas, for example, or if someone more current, Bernard Lonergan (Catholic) or Paul Ricoeur (Protestant).
Who would a Theosopher cite?
Thomas
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Thomas, we discussed,
Why?
"We need to teach critical-thinking skills to others. --> Yes we do."
--> The Bible says the sun stopped, yet you think it did not stop. A use of critical-thinking skills would lead us to ask why.
Why?
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Andrew,
I am sorry I took so long to get back to you, but I got distracted writing a long post in another thread.
I am baffled by Brian's contention that it is OK to discuss Johua 10:13, yet it is not OK to ask, "Did the sun stop moving?" I think a critically-thinking person would naturally end up asking such a question.
It is a basic Theosophical contention that goofy ideas creep into all religions as the centuries pass by. It is our job to look for these goofy ideas, point them out, and point out how each religion has deviated from its original teachings.
I am sorry I took so long to get back to you, but I got distracted writing a long post in another thread.
I am baffled by Brian's contention that it is OK to discuss Johua 10:13, yet it is not OK to ask, "Did the sun stop moving?" I think a critically-thinking person would naturally end up asking such a question.
It is a basic Theosophical contention that goofy ideas creep into all religions as the centuries pass by. It is our job to look for these goofy ideas, point them out, and point out how each religion has deviated from its original teachings.
Pathless
Fiercely Interdependent
Hi Nick —
And the use of same skills would have elucidated an answer, from my response a few posts above. So, if indeed we need to exercise our critical thinking skills, I shall allow you the chance to look again, and work it out for yourself.
I shall indicate accuracy accordingly.
Thomas
And the use of same skills would have elucidated an answer, from my response a few posts above. So, if indeed we need to exercise our critical thinking skills, I shall allow you the chance to look again, and work it out for yourself.
I shall indicate accuracy accordingly.
Thomas
Hi Nick —
And if you wish that contention to stand in the public arena, as here — that the world's sacra doctrina contains 'goofy ideas' — then you must be able to justify it.
And in so doing, necessarily demonstrate why your own doctrine is not similarly subject to 'goofy ideas'.
And of course, you will need to demonstrate that you have the necessary tools and acumen with which to carry out this self-appointed task.
Otherwise we can rightly thing your very supposition is itself a 'goofy idea'. Not to mention elitist and condescending in the extreme.
Thomas
And if you wish that contention to stand in the public arena, as here — that the world's sacra doctrina contains 'goofy ideas' — then you must be able to justify it.
And in so doing, necessarily demonstrate why your own doctrine is not similarly subject to 'goofy ideas'.
And of course, you will need to demonstrate that you have the necessary tools and acumen with which to carry out this self-appointed task.
Otherwise we can rightly thing your very supposition is itself a 'goofy idea'. Not to mention elitist and condescending in the extreme.
Thomas
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Thomas,
Well since you asked.... The Bible says humanity was created, uncreated, and recreated. This idea (not an original teaching, according to Theosophy) was added later. I would label this Double-Creation Story as goofy.
Well since you asked.... The Bible says humanity was created, uncreated, and recreated. This idea (not an original teaching, according to Theosophy) was added later. I would label this Double-Creation Story as goofy.
Hi Nick —
Might I also add, for someone whose sensibilities with regard to his own beliefs are so finely attuned — to the degree that a perceived offence cannot be forgiven — you seem remarkably insensitive to the offense you offer others in such a glib fashion as when declaring that their sacred texts contain 'goofy ideas'.
Has not this thought ever occured to you?
For the sake of fairness, I would commend Bruce as a fine example to follow — we have clashed, but in all our dealings he is always precise and to the point, with no hint of acrimony or animosity.
Thomas
Might I also add, for someone whose sensibilities with regard to his own beliefs are so finely attuned — to the degree that a perceived offence cannot be forgiven — you seem remarkably insensitive to the offense you offer others in such a glib fashion as when declaring that their sacred texts contain 'goofy ideas'.
Has not this thought ever occured to you?
For the sake of fairness, I would commend Bruce as a fine example to follow — we have clashed, but in all our dealings he is always precise and to the point, with no hint of acrimony or animosity.
Thomas
Nick, since you offered,
And I have demonstrated as have others here that it is your interpretation that is 'goofy', as there is no 'Double-Creation Story' ... that you appear to fail to take on board your error is, sadly, not my fault, nor that of my co-poster who also responded to what we regard as a 'goofy assertion'.
In the interests of critical thinking, where does it say humanity was 'uncreated'?
Thomas
And I have demonstrated as have others here that it is your interpretation that is 'goofy', as there is no 'Double-Creation Story' ... that you appear to fail to take on board your error is, sadly, not my fault, nor that of my co-poster who also responded to what we regard as a 'goofy assertion'.
In the interests of critical thinking, where does it say humanity was 'uncreated'?
Thomas
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Thomas, you said,
--> That is the beauty of a free and open discussion of religious ideas. I applaud your having the freedom to make such a statement. I applaud your interest in finding out why it is or is not goofy.
"And I have demonstrated as have others here that it is your interpretation that is 'goofy'...."
--> That is the beauty of a free and open discussion of religious ideas. I applaud your having the freedom to make such a statement. I applaud your interest in finding out why it is or is not goofy.
"...where does it say humanity was 'uncreated'?"
--> Genesis 2:5
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
lol........ Yeah reet.
AndrewX, I'm simply trying to cool things down where they get too heated. That's my motivation in a single sentence.
By the way, as a pointer, it would be a lot easier to read your posts without all the formatting.
I try to allow for expressions for all faiths here, and that means CR shouldn't really be a bashing ground against any single faith.
Obviously, a lot of pointers of contention are raised between a Christian reading of the Bible, and a non-Christian reading of the Bible. My aim is to ensure that neither the Christians nor the Theosophists are singled out and attacked simply for having their own faith.
As above to AndrewX, though, I'm simply here to keep the peace, and so far things appear to be getting a little out of hand, with all parties feeling hard done by. Hence why I'm looking to calm the thread.
On the note of double creation - Bob X wrote an interesting study, published on CR years ago, which looks at "redaction theory" ie, the notion that the original Jewish books in what Christians refer to as the Old Testament were revision periodically over the years:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/torah_torah_torah/
http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/torah_torah_torah/
Hi, I Brian —
Redaction theory is part of current Catholic Theology, and my Course Director, fluent in Hebrew (and Latin and Greek and Ugaritic) waxes lyrical about the Divine inspiration of the "Deuteronomist scribe".
According to the above hypothesis, the subsequent "doublets theory" signify repetitions indicate material from different sources, telling substantially the same story, with different orders of emphasis. In this case Chapter 1 from the Elohist source, Chapter 2 from the Jahwist.
Scholarship is obliged to acknowledge that theories are just that ... theories. Some scholars reject the JEPD hypothesis out of hand, others only with significant conditions and reservations ... in fact I don't think you'll find two scholars who agree absolutely on every point.
Interestingly, secular researchers in the fields of archaeology etc, have made finds that actually disprove many of the assumptions of the "it can't be" Biblical critics. At one point it was a tenet of critics that Abraham had to by a myth, as writing did not appear until millenia later ...and then lo! Someone uncovers inscriptions from the era.
Also — significant advances have appeared in showing the commonalities of the Hebrew Scriptures and the contemporary texts ... other cultures had their '10 commandments' or similar legislative codes ... parallels between the Song of Songs and Egyptian lyrical forms, etc.
Thomas
Redaction theory is part of current Catholic Theology, and my Course Director, fluent in Hebrew (and Latin and Greek and Ugaritic) waxes lyrical about the Divine inspiration of the "Deuteronomist scribe".
According to the above hypothesis, the subsequent "doublets theory" signify repetitions indicate material from different sources, telling substantially the same story, with different orders of emphasis. In this case Chapter 1 from the Elohist source, Chapter 2 from the Jahwist.
Scholarship is obliged to acknowledge that theories are just that ... theories. Some scholars reject the JEPD hypothesis out of hand, others only with significant conditions and reservations ... in fact I don't think you'll find two scholars who agree absolutely on every point.
Interestingly, secular researchers in the fields of archaeology etc, have made finds that actually disprove many of the assumptions of the "it can't be" Biblical critics. At one point it was a tenet of critics that Abraham had to by a myth, as writing did not appear until millenia later ...and then lo! Someone uncovers inscriptions from the era.
Also — significant advances have appeared in showing the commonalities of the Hebrew Scriptures and the contemporary texts ... other cultures had their '10 commandments' or similar legislative codes ... parallels between the Song of Songs and Egyptian lyrical forms, etc.
Thomas
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Thomas, let's take a look:
Genesis 1:27 "...God created man in his own image...."
Genesis 2:5 "...there was no man to work the ground...."
--> We have two possibilities here.
(1) A humanity was created on Day Six which had disappeared by Genesis 2:5.
(2) A humanity was created on Day Six which still existed by Genesis 2:5. This humanity, however, was unable to till the soil ("work the ground").
I believe you are going with the first possibility. However, the second possibility fits the Theosophical version of what actually happened.
Theosophy reconciles the two quotes. Do you?
Genesis 1:27 "...God created man in his own image...."
Genesis 2:5 "...there was no man to work the ground...."
--> We have two possibilities here.
(1) A humanity was created on Day Six which had disappeared by Genesis 2:5.
(2) A humanity was created on Day Six which still existed by Genesis 2:5. This humanity, however, was unable to till the soil ("work the ground").
I believe you are going with the first possibility. However, the second possibility fits the Theosophical version of what actually happened.
Theosophy reconciles the two quotes. Do you?
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Brian, Your link takes us to:
"...the apparent repetitions in the second part of Genesis on information already covered in the first."
--> I propose the Bible is not merely repeating information on this particular point. I would characterize the Bible as a story with events in a chronological order. When I see it in such a chronological order, it makes more sense to me. I see Day Six happening, then Genesis 2:5 happening, just like the Bible says. I believe this chronological order of events is what the original authors meant to write. I see no reason to say Day Six was not followed by the events of Genesis 2:5. The two chronological events compliment each other nicely.